allowed on the new i-41. this would just maintain the status quo and not disrupt the current flow of traffic. this is not unprecedented. other roads which have become part of the interstate system have received this type of grandfathering include i-39 in wisconsin with no ill-effect. in fact wisconsin state patrol, which is responsible for truck safety enforcement, has issued a statement in support of this bill and is noting the safety benefits of not forcing these trucks off the safer interstate and onto state and local roads which are not designated to carry such traffic. . the bill before us is also supported by republican and democratic members of the wisconsin delegation, our two u.s. senators, many state and local officials and organizations. i ask my house colleagues to approve this bill which is so important to my state and i

eserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman wishes to clarify -- the chair wishes to clarify with the gentleman whether the bill called up is with or without amendment. mr. pe try: without amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the pending bill is the union calendar version which has not been amended. the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. rahall: i yield myself such time as i may consume. congress has previously grandfathered truck weightsen roads that have on ta -- obtained interstate designation including in wisconsin and maryland, i point that out to note that what is being propose in the pending legislation is

not without precedent or justification. while i support this legislation and consideration -- support this legislation, consideration of this bill should not be considered an indicator of movement on whether to increase truck weights generally. this is a limited measure and i am evaluating it as such. i support this bill and urge its adoption and reserve the balance of mir time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. such time as ield he may consume to the gentleman from wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i want to thank mr. petri and mr. rahall for working with us. as we passed this bill by voice vote, this bill is very simple. mr. ribble: it maintains the status quo on a sing hl highway in wisconsin which is being changed from a u.s. highway to austin interstate.

highway 41 from green bay, wisconsin to milwaukee is slated to become an interstate next year. to do that without disruption to safety it's important that we grandfather the current weight limits that are currently on the road and this bill does exactly that. it ensures that any trucks that drive on the road today will be able to drive on the road after the conversion. without this bill, shippers would simply have two options and neither would be good for safety. one option would be to move these trucks onto side roads which in wisconsin are often rural and through small town, not suited for truck traffic. the other option would be to put more trucks on this -- on the highway to comply with lower weight limits. neither option is good for safety or good for wisconsin. as chairman petri mentioned, it's supported by the wisconsin state patrol, supported by the governor of wisconsin, it's supported by wisconsin state assembly including the majority and ranking members and it's supported by wisconsin's state

senate, supported by wisconsin's d.o.t. as the ranking member mentioned, this is not a precedent-setting piece of legislation. in fact this happened in other pars of the country. i'm in support of this legislation, i urge my colleagues to support it and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from -- from west virginia is recognized. mr. rahall: i ask the chairman if he has any further speakers. i have no more on this side, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. petri: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to support the legislation before us. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2353. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on

the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> i move to suspend the rules and pass house concurrent resolution 44. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. 25, lerk: house calendar house concurrent resolution 44, authorizing the use of capitol grounds for the district of columbia special olympics law enforcement torch run. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from wisconsin, mr. ribble, and the gentlewoman from to district of columbia, ms.

norton, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ribble: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on house resolution 44. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ribble: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ribble: h.con.res. 44 would authorize the use of capitol grounds for the district of columbia special olympics law enforcement torch run to be held on september 27, 2013. i would first like to thank ranking member norton on the subcommittee for public buildings and emergency management for introducing this resolution as well as chairman barletta of the subcommittee for co-sponsoring it. as in years past, the torch run will be launched from the west terrace of the capitol and continue through the capitol grounds as part of the journey ott annual d.c. special olympics

summer games. special olympics is an rganization dedicated to enriching the lives of children and adults with disabilities through athletics. it began in 1981 when the police chief of kansas saw the need to increase funds for special olympics. today the search run is the largest grass roots evert that raises funds and awareness for the special olympics program. the event in d.c. is one of many law enforcement torch runs throughout the country and across 40 nations. i support the passage of this resolution. thank you, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. norton: i rise in support of house concurrent resolution 44 which authorizes the use of capitol grounds for the 28th

annual law enforcement torch run which benefits the district of columbia special olympics. the torch relay event is a decisionally -- has traditionally been associated with summer d.c. olympics which took place this past may. each year, approximately 2,500 special olympians compete in over a dozen events and here in the nation's capital and more than one million children and adults will -- with special needs will participate in special olympics programs worldwide. the law enforcement torch run has become a truly popular event on capitol hill and it's an integral part of the fundraising efforts for the d.c. special olimp exs. nearly 1,500 law enforcement torch run participants are expected to assemble at the west terrace of the u.s. capitol building on september 27, 2013.

fort .3 mile run to mcnear that culminates in a picnic and celebration for all participants. the special olimp exs of d.c. provides year-round sports and fitness training, helps -- health screenings, and athletic comp tirgs to all children and adults with intellectual disabilities and touches thousands of families in d.c. and the region. rticipants are involved in basketball, bowling, golf, soccer, tennis, track and field, volleyball and many other sports programs that address various levels of ability. best of all, the different programs offer to -- offered to special olympics athletes are always free of charge and partially supported by the event that we would authorize today. i am truly pleased to support such a herer tos you organization and support --

meritorious organization and i support this resolution and ask my colleagues to do the same. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ribble: i'm prepared to yield if the gentlelady has no additional speakers and is going to yield. mr. -- ms. norton: i thank -- i thank the gentleman for his consideration and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ribble: i thank the gentlelady. this is a terrific event, mr. speaker. it's one that every member of congress should support and i encourage the adoption of it. i yield my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house concurrent resolution 44. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative -- mr. ribble: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in fare of -- favor of

taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this otion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass house resolution 1542.

the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman call up h.r. 1542. mr. meehan: yes, h r. 1542. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 1542, to amend the security and intenlts act to extend security and intelligence sharing function of the department of homeland security and to require dissemination of information analyzed by the department to entities with responsibilities relating to homeland security and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meehan, and the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. meehan: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. meehan: i yield myself such

time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. meehan: i thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the homeland security committee chairman representative mccaul and former chair peter king as well as ranking member higgins and congresswoman jackie speier for joining me in introducing this bipartisan legislation. i urge support for h.r. 1542, the weapons of mass destruction intelligence and information act of 2013. the legislation provides important guidance for disseminating w.m.d., that's weapons of mass the stux, intelligence information at department of homeland security. weapons of mass destruction are considered for the purposes of this act to be chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons. mr. speaker, in 2010, the congress established the commission on the prevention of

weapons of mass destruction, proliferation and terrorism. the commission was chaired by former senators bob graham and jim tallon. a principal but as of yet unfilled recommendation if the commegs was to assure the critical collaboration take place, collaboration among homeland security intelligence assets and other federal, state, and local partners protecting the homeland. it's time for congress to do its part right now to ensure the nation is meeting its w.m.t. detection and prenks responsibilities in a meaningful way. mr. speaker, when i stood before the body, this body, on this bill last year, i had recently returned from the mideast. one of the takeaways from the trip was the amount of chemical weapons stockpiled in syria. i raised concern that during this extraordinary time of insecurity in the region, these

weapons could wind up in the hands of al qaeda or other terrorists. since that time, we've al cally learned that assaad has used chemical weapons on his own people and we have the fear and concern of those who express dead sire in iran to use weapons of mass destruction to assure that israel does not exist. chemical weapons have pleatly changed the way our military prepared for operations. just last week, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, martin dempsey, told the senate armed services committee that the mill tear is preparing for the possibility of encountering chemical weapons in syria. the risk of these weapons getting into the hands of terrorists continues to grow and our military continues to become more vigilant. these risks, the current nature of the threat, makes this legislation all the more

relevant. we must do more to ensure that local law enforcement is privy to intelligence. the potential for homegrown radicalization has increased and so intelligence needs to be increased all the more. we are aware of the tragic circumstance of the attacks in boston that occurred all too recently. the treasury enforcement communication system or text lert was placed on tarn self and pinge department of homeland security. when he traveled to russia in twelve and subsequently returned to the u.s., a red flag should have been raised and federal, state and local officials should have been notified. one of the purposes of this bill is to enhance the communication and collaboration

between our federal intelligence assets, particularly those of humanitarian and our federal, state and loke -- homeland security, and our federal, state and local partners. chemical, biological and nuclear materials can be quite difficult to protect and prevent. however, the danger they pose is unimaginable. my legislation is with the recommendation from the commission and it will ensure sustained department of homeland security commitment to facilitate the partnership across the intelligence community and the first responder community. i urge support for this bill and reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1542, w.m.d. intelligence and information sharing act of 2013 and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. rise in support of h.r. 1542,

the w.m.d. intelligence and information sharing act of 2013. this bill would strengthen information sharing at all levels of government regarding chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear terrorist threats. since the attacks of september 11, 2001, concerns about an attack on u.s. soil with a weapon of mass destruction or dirty bomb have come into sharp focus. the director of national intelligence has stated that the intelligence community remain concerned about the prospect that a terrorist organization or nonstate active could exploit a weapon of mass destruction and with little or no warning inflict significant damage to our nation's citizens and the economy. the potentially devastating nature of w.m.d. attacks has come into greater focus in recent months. evidence larhere is

that chemical evidence was used in the syrian war. worries persist that in the chaos of this war, dangerous chemical agents could fall into the hands of terrorists, other rogue operators. the prospect that biological and nuclear weapons could fall in the hands is very concerning. recognizing that effective information sharing is essential to preventing a w.m.d. attack, h.r. 1542 requires the department of homeland security to support homeland security focus analysis of terrorist actors and their plans to conduct attacks involving chemical, biological and nuclear materials against a nation. this bill requires d.h.s. to coordinate nate with other components -- coordinate with other components and other federal, state, local and tribal authorities to provide recommendations on information sharing recognition.

-- mechanisms. robust partnerships between d.h.s. and local law enforcement are critical to enhance in the awareness with respect to terrorism prevention including prevention of a w.m.d. attack. i'm pleased to support this bipartisan bill and would like to acknowledge that the language under consideration today originated in comprehensive w.m.d. legislation authored by my former committee colleague, representative bill pascrell of new jersey. while i support this measure, i would hope that this congress could move forward on more comprehensive w.m.d. provential legislation in the very near future. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. meehan: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from

mississippi for his comments and i also want to recognize as he does the great work that was done by congressman pascrell on this issue as well here in this house. and when i had the good fortune to begin to do work on the house homeland security committee, it was congressman pascrell who was among those who brought this issue to our attention. the failure or lack of the ability to see the issues that the talent commission put forward, put into place. so i want to thank him for his good work on this issue as well. mr. speaker, i have no further speakers at this point. and so if the gentleman from mississippi has no further speakers, i'm certainly prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves his time. the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers, and i am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i urge passage of

h.r. 1542 today. enactment of this measure will strengthen the partnership between the department of homeland security and our nation's first preventers against one of the most vecksing homeland security threats, weapons of mass destruction. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. meehan: i thank the gentleman from mississippi and, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. but i want to thank my colleagues for their support of h.r. 1542. this is a vitally important piece of legislation, as has been identified in the earlier comments of the gentleman from mississippi, and i echo them myself, particularly his concern as we engage in a world in which the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly those which are chemical weapons which we do not know where they may have fallen into hands from not only syria, libya as well, creates a

heightened sense of need and awareness on the part of those in our intelligence committees to do all to assure there's collaboration on intelligence that they derive in these areas with the partners on the federal, state and local levels. so i urge the members to support this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1542. mr. meehan: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to h.r. 1542. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mr. meehan: mr. speaker, may i ask for a recorded vote?

the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. meehan: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will e postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 6:30 p.m.

national journal joining us. the house continues its work on the annual spending bill to keep the federal government funded. what is coming up this week? big show will be defense appropriations in the house. $512 billion bill. how do you bring it there and how do you get the procedures set up so they can actually vote on the bill. both republicans and democrats have issues of the national security agency. egypt and and activities in those two countries. they will talk about that on the house floor before the passage.

the leaders want to limits of that. they give us a couple of reasons. they say there are some classified things that may creep up in those discussions in public. in reality, they are also very concerned that some of the programs they do not want cut could become victim to a combination of libertarian republicans. in your store, you write that there are 17 legislative days left before the year begins. how are they going to work on the spending bills that are supposed to keep the government operating? guest: they have until september 30 end of the disco year before they must renew the current resolutions. -- before they must renew the current resolutions. perhapslooking to do four or five this week.

they only have 17 scheduled days . the recess begins at the end of next week. they only have nine scheduled days in september with the holidays and the labor day and constituent were quickly. -- work week. see a spending connectivity or see them putting together a continuing resolution. host: you mentioned the overall spending. do they stay under sequestration caps? still under, but in a way that would impact other bills. members on both sides of the aisle have both privately and some publicly suggested that should be arams little less than social programs. obviously, most democrats have a problem with this.

year inwith last regards to defense spending. that seems to be were they are heading to take a little less out of defense and more from other programs. the: later in the week house is considering to go pills the epa. what are those about? guest: republican messaging, basically. one of them would require the on thedo a report suggestion or program that would cost $1 billion or more to implement. these are not going anywhere in the senate. aey are cutting down regulation or trying to and cutting down on cost to the business. host: a staff correspondent for national journal. appreciate your time. guest: thank you. >> the house rules committee is meeting right now. we will have updates on what the committee decides during house votes which are for 6:30

eastern. here is more about what to expect in congress over the next week or two to go. >> with just two weeks to go before congress adjourned, a busy time on capitol hill. joining us now to help guide us through the issues is the managing editor of the hill newspaper. .hank you let's start with the must do's. senate want to get done over the next two weeks? will: the house this week be working on a defense appropriations bill. that is interesting, because it could be a number of amendments that could compensate the passage of it whether it is on the nsa, egypt 80, or syria. aid, or syria. that'll be a spirited debate. we do not know what will be allowed as far as amendments.

working i is transportation appropriations bill. in committee, six republicans voted for spending levels that went beyond the president obama's budget and beyond what the house republicans have proposed. in republicans are a little splitan on that transportation bill. the big thing that everybody is watching is immigration. what will the house be doing on andimmigration? the senate has passed a bipartisan bill, a lot of pressure on the house and it looks at the house the passing narrow immigration measures and then going to conference. you do not have word of when that will be. it is not going to be this week. it'll probably be next week. we talked to some members, and they think some of these bills which have been approved by the judiciary committee will be voted on in the same day. they will not be lumped together in one bill like the senate bill was. host: breaking them up and -- guest: going to conference grid that is when the negotiation starts. host: john boehner was on cbs's "face the nation" talking about

senate immigration bill. [video clip] >> if you allow a bill on the floor that provides a path to citizenship -- >> what we are going to do in the house, we are dealing with this in a commonsense, step-by- step approach. we want to deal with this in chunks, chunks that members can deal with and grapple with, and frankly chunks that the american people can get their arms around. host: we do not know the specific timing of when we will see this. guest: i think it will be next week. the house republicans, they say they are not went to vote on the senate bill. that is not going to be happening anytime soon good they do feel pressure to move something. host: does that pressure come from what the vote score was on the senate with their bill? a good number of republicans that got behind the bill? guest: they feel now the ball is in our court. it is interesting what speaker john boehner said to bob

schieffer of cbs. he is not going to propose or endorse any type of bill. he has been critical of the senate measure. he also did back the farm bill before it went to the house floor. this is a tough challenge for speaker boehner. a lot of his members do not want to pass anything like a pathway to citizenship that was in the senate bill, but as a party, the gop feels like they must pass some sort of immigration reform bill. a lot of people are saying is immigration is going to get to president obama's desk, it's got to happen in 2013 before the election year. this fall will be very busy. in the fall, we are going to be dealing with a possible government shutdown, the debt limit showdown. other things are going to be grappling for attention on capitol hill. host: bob schieffer pushed the speaker several times to try to say whether he would support specifically the path to citizenship.

the speaker did not want to say his personal opinion. talk about the dynamics that speaker boehner is dealing with and why he would not want to give away his opinion. guest: he's got a lot of conservatives who are worried about primary challenges who do not have a lot of hispanics in their districts. they do not trust the obama administration to enforce border security provisions that are in the senate bill. they think it is worthless because the obama administration on various things has deviated from what the kid on it including recently on the health-care law with the employer mandate. republican say that administration has skirted congress. majority leader cantor and judiciary committee chairman bob goodlatte are crafting a

legislation that would be the republican version of the dream act. republican say, it is not going to be the dream act, but it will be the children of illegals who come here, dealing with them. we do not have language on that. i do not think that will be passing or even being introduced over the next week. that could come into play when the house and senate go into conference. host: you talked about spending bills earlier and what is coming up. talk about how the spending process is working this year in the face of possibly more sequestration cuts to come. guest: yes, the senate budget committee this week is holding a hearing on sequestration. it is something that has evaporated from the headlines on and certainly democrats are trying to put emphasis back on sequestration. as far as the budget process, there is not a lot of optimism on capitol hill because what the house budget passed, the house passed and senate passed, what they passed for transportation

bills, are vastly different grade they could not agree to get into conference between the house and senate. that is why some people are saying that there could be some type of government shutdown. there is very little hope that appropriation measures are going to be signed into law anytime soon before the fiscal year ends september 30. host: you talk about the vast differences between some of the bills that are moving on capitol hill. here is a story from "the hill" talking about the transportation, housing, and urban development bill that is moving forward -- the difference between the house and senate version is about $10 billion. the differences between these bills, is this a particularly

unusual thing this time around of how far apart they are? guest: yes and no. they are more far apart than they have been in previous years, but with republicans controlling the house in recent years, as well as democrats controlling the senate, we have seen these differences. some of that comes across community development blocks, grants that are in the senate bill, and also high-speed rail. there is no money on the house side for high-speed rail. senate democrats have embraced that. senate democrats may seek in a debate transportation bill on the floor -- there is no doubt that they will be noting that six republicans in committee voted for it. that could split the senate republicans from the house republicans on this. whether that gets a deal, that is unlikely. host: i want to read little bit more from the story on maybe why the transportation, housing, and urban development bill is moving forward first. the story notes --

host: are we going to see a return to the impact of sequestration messages coming out of senate democrats and from the white house? guest: to some degree. a lot of democrats come and certainly republicans and some democrats, believe that the white house overplayed its hand on sequestration. republicans mocked the white house could the economy is getting better. the white house says, we are still not there yet. this is one of the messages about the economy. democrats are trying to sequestration about the economy. they think over the long term, this will have real effects of

middle-class families, but republicans say, they do not like sequestration, they do not like the defense cuts, but at the same time, they want cut one way or the other. that is why they have gone into effect. host: here is an editorial in today's "baltimore sun" written by senator ben cardin -- i want to read you a little bit of that. ben cardin says --

host: are we going to be seeing more of these type of editorials from democratic members? guest: i think so but you have seen some stories that low-level and i was taught to remember last week concerned about suicides in the military saying there had been cut to the mental health services to help prevent suicides in the military. whether it moves congress to actually get some type of deal, that will not happen before the august recess. however, the sequestration to some degree may be altered, revamped during the debt limit discussions later this fall. host: we are talking with bob cusack, managing editor of "the hill" newspaper. the lines are open.

host: we've got a call from darrick from seattle, washington on our democratic line. caller: thank you. i would like your guest to take a look at what i am going to say. the clinton presidency and obama presidency -- if you look at them, they are trying to do the exact same thing. clinton had a tax increase, that's all he got, but all the bad policies we put in place.

nafta, glass-steagall, the same thing with obama, he got a tax increase and they are trying to put it all these bad policies, bad abortion policies to destroy the government, they talked about impeachment. if the democrats do not realize this, they will lose and the midterm and black people not come out and represent. we won't vote for hillary. we're not going to support hillary clinton because she might bring back the triangulation of the clinton administration. host: the caller brings up the midterm elections coming up and how some of the policy issues that president obama is pushing right now might affect that. what do you see in your stories? guest: one thing that we wrote

over the weekend is that at the beginning of this cycle after the election that obama won convincingly, he was eyeing winning back the house . that is a real uphill climb right now and there is talk about how democrats could lose the senate. host: that is the story from "the hill." guest: recently, the big news is brian schweitzer not running in montana. he opted not to run against max baucus. the pundits are thinking that republicans have a slight edge there. the math favors the republicans in this cycle, but not in 2016. as far as the house, democrats need to pick up a substantial

amount, 17, right now, many democrats have to worry about their seats as well as republicans. few think that democrats can win back the house in 2014. let's see what the implementation of obamacare is. if that goes smoothly, democrats will go well. it does not, republicans will do well. the other issue will be the economy and both parties want to get out their base in midterm elections. host: in recent midterms, we have seen wave elections, a big wins for one side or another. what is the prediction for this upcoming midterm? will this be closer? guest: it is a little bit too early to say. history has not been kind. they called the six-year itch. presidents are in their second year election. president obama had a tough midterm election in 2010. it was a shellacking where republicans took back the house

and cut into the democratic majority. here for senate republicans, this is probably their last shot to win back the senate for a while. the math in 2016 will not be good. republicans will be defending a seats.c street can republicans can republicans win back the senate? yes, they need to pick up six seats which will be challenging. at the same time, i think it's too early but because of history, most people think republicans will pick up seats. host: we are talking with bob cuasck of "the hill" newspaper. i will take you to a policy issue. how important is energy, carbon credit -- guest: i think the house will try.

there are two energy bills on the house floor this week that deal with the economy. republicans say they want to cut back and energy regulations so that would help the economy. one is by congressman bill cassidy running against senator landrieu and the other is offered by congressman david mckinley and that is the coal- ash bill which has been labeled a hazardous material. this is a bipartisan bill hitting the house floor. as you see gas prices rise, you always see more talk on capitol hill of energy. it is no surprise in the east of the summer that house republicans have scheduled a couple of energy bills. host: in his big speech on global warming issues, environmental issues, president obama talked about doing things through the executive branch and not through congress to lower carbon emissions.

is anything happening on capitol hill right now that that members have tried to move on carbon emissions? guest: the president has failed to try to get climate bills through. it passed the house. nancy pelosi was able to muscle a bill through the lower chamber and it stalled in the senate. president obama is going to use his administration powers to address climate change and they will be a series of rule making that they will issue. congress can overturn these rules through the congressional review act but they have to be final rules. through the congressional review, you don't need 60 votes. host: they are talking about carbon pollution from power plants. guest: yes, there is a question of when that rule is final.

it would move through the house. would the senate pass it? president obama can veto it even if it gets 51 votes but i'm sure the white house does not want to be in that situation. there are democrats nervous about what the administration is doing an energy and climate change. the administration has made it clear that they will address this through rulemaking. host: we are taking your calls on the congressional agenda. bruce is up next, independent from baltimore, maryland. caller: good morning. i'm a registered independent. i have drifted more conservative than one of the things is immigration. i have nothing against people

who are legal immigrants, but i'm totally against any type of comprehensive immigration reform because of personal experience. i had a number of illegal immigrants that have moved into my neighborhood that have made no attempt to simulate -- to a similar engine and a respect for the neighborhood. host: the immigration bill is being broken into pieces, are there pieces of this bill you do agree with? caller: i am so frustrated. there is a house right next to me with illegal immigrants coming with different states' license plates. they have had code violations and it took me years to get an inspector out there. they don't care about law. host: what do you want to see from congress? caller: i am conservative now and i will vote republican.

conservative republicans have to stand up for this stuff. host: we will go to kenneth from arizona on our democrat line, good morning. caller: i'm from marianna, arkansas. i would like congress to look into the stand your ground laws. many people don't know that in 1947, jackie robinson got ran out of the sanford, florida. he had threats against him. the citizens there got together and the mayor caved in and they had to moved the ball team out of sanford, florida to daytona beach to complete their

training. there is something wrong down there with the jury that was picked to down there but congress needs to look into these laws especially stand your ground. the citizens that ran jackie robinson out of florida probably had children sitting on that jury. they need to look and see the relationship of what is going on how these jurors are picked. people looking for a fair and impartial jury. host: talk about the stand your ground laws that were brought up because of the trayvon martin case. guest: that is an issue that will be talked about especially after president obama's extraordinary press conference on friday which was totally unexpected and his reaction to the verdict which was nearly a week after the verdict came in. democrats are definitely echoing that call. they say we need to have hearings to take a look at the state laws. republicans, for the most part, are saying is an issue of state power and states want to pass their own laws, they are free to

do so. you will see a lot of reaction to what the president said on friday. congress was out when he had that press conference. host: congresswoman marcia fudge from ohio was on nbc's "meet the press." she is the head of the national black caucus and talked about the trayvon martin case and the larger issues. [video clip] >> you look at what has happened in 2013. we've got the trayvon martin case that everyone is talking about and this is happening across the country every day. you look at the fact that we have a supreme court that just gutted the voting rights act.

they are trying to do the same thing with affirmative-action, you look at the house of representatives that last week took food stamps out of the farm belt. we are being attacked from someone decides when you have to decide where you have the most impact. host: the different issues that she brought up there, are any of those coming up in the next two weeks having to do with the supreme court voting rights or the exclusion of food stamps in the house farm bill? guest: definitely the voting rights act. there is a big hearing in the senate where congressman john lewis, a democrat from georgia, a civil rights activist, and jim sensenbrenner from wisconsin both agreed that congress does need to address the voting rights act after the supreme court decision. house republican leaders have not indicated what they will do on that just yet. at the same time, there is some

bipartisan calls for that and as far as the farm bill, debbie stabenow is ready to finish the farm bill is the house passed a farm bill after much difficulty as well as the senate, but the food stamps as was mentioned was not included on the house side. house republicans indicated they may pass a separate food stamp legislation and will not go into conference until that is done. the farm bill is something that is pending but probably is not going to be settled any time the committee after the congressional recess. host: charles from connecticut of our republican line, good morning. caller: good morning, i question is probably more economics than politics. we have this supposed debt limit. why do we have a debt limit when nobody ever pays any attention to it? i will get off the line listen

to your answer. guest: the united states has debts and we borrow a lot of money. some members are kind of confused as to why we borrow money from other countries when foreign nationals cannot contribute to politicians. in order to pay our bills, the united states needs to lift the debt limit. this has been going on for decades. usually, the process is just to schedule a vote with a clean debt increased. republicans said we are not doing that anymore and we saw that in 2011 with a major showdown. republicans said we will need some spending reforms. finally, a deal was brokered. one of the credit rating agencies after that downgraded the united states credit rating. now we are facing that again. it is not clear exactly when the

date will be. it has been moved back because the federal government has received more revenues partially because of the fiscal cliff deal that was reached in january. within the next several months, the debt limit will have to be raised and the president has said he is not negotiating like in 2011. it was an ugly time in washington but republicans are saying that the votes are not there for a clean debt increase and we need some spending reform. it could get quite ugly again. host: we are looking at a fall timeframe? guest: fall or possibly late fall. it looks like it will be this year but the treasury department is reassessing how much money they have and how long they can keep going. at some point, they will say that we need the debt limit raised. there has been no progress on the grand bargain. the president has been doing a charm offensive on republicans

mostly in the senate have credited the president for getting together and having these dinners whether it be at a restaurant in d.c. or at the white house. they have not yielded much as far as negotiating some type of a grand bargain, whether it is on medicare, medicaid, and the debt limit. that is probably not going to happen. host: could you talk about detroit and the bankruptcy? guest: i saw a press release from john conyers from michigan. it is big news that the city has filed for bankruptcy. it says it's the only way it can survive. this has angered a number of constituents in detroit. i have not seen a lot of what congress will be doing but certainly, as this moves forward, a lot of people think

it is an easy way out whether it is for individuals or cities to file for bankruptcy. others say it is absolutely a must in order to save the city. host: chris from waltham, massachusetts, on our independent line. caller: first of all, i don't know how supporting the billions of dollars of unfunded pension liabilities would help detroit get back on the right track. i was thinking that the democrats and republicans do the same thing. we are still talking like this is a professional wrestling match, blue verses red, republicans versus democrats, when we have seen for the last

10 to 20 years the illusion of our civil liberties and our economic decline. you talked about the debt limit. it is basically magic paper that we just pull out from under the bed and say take this money or we will shoot you. host: we're talking about priorities of congress and the short term. what do you think their priorities should be? caller: to ask themselves some very difficult questions about why they are doing their job the way they are doing it. and to absolve themselves.

host: let's go to mike from beaverton, oregon, on our democratic line. caller: hi, i am concerned because i am autistic and i wrote a speech and it made people cry because i was talking the truth. my new speech is -- in any religion, in any country, man's inhumanity to man. basically, the americans have a national debt, a gross debt of $17.2 trillion. and it is expected to be $18.20 trillion in fiscal year 2014.

this means that the federal debt per person is about $52,671. there are companies like chase manhattan bank that have not paid taxes in 15 years. i know this for a fact because i do my research. host: the president this week is going to be giving a series of speeches talking about the economy, the pivot back to the economy as it has been described. will he be talking about these issues? guest: a think he will talk about what the economy looks like and it is getting better at a slow pace. that was the message of president obama's reelection campaign is that we averted economic disaster after the

implosion of 2008 and i think president obama will talk a lot about that as far as the debt. you talk to some democrats including senator charles schumer who has said we are on an unsustainable path. whether it is a long or short way out, there are different opinions about how quickly the u.s. needs to act. at some point, it needs to act because of the ballooning deficit. the president has had a rough six months for a lot of his agenda items other than immigration reform and gun control died in the senate. they are trying to revive it. immigration reform does not look like is a sure bet to pass. gun-control and immigration were his two top priorities. on the economy, there are signs of life especially in the housing sector. it is not surprising the white house wants to talk about that.

host: this is a positive place he can go to? guest: exactly. host: also important is presidential nominees. what about the deal that was reached last week and is there a time line for moving them? guest: they had the nuclear option, the threat of nuclear option plastic and it went down to the wire. this was senate majority leader harry reid threatening to change the rules of the senate so that for executive branch nominees, not judicial and legislation, he would change the rules of the senate so that it would clear with a straight up or down about and they cannot -- the threshold is 51 votes. there were seven nominees that were in dispute. that is what harry reid kept saying. they said republicans can avert the nuclear option if they let the seventh through. in a deal negotiated senate republican leaders and john mccain was in the middle of that deal, they reached an agreement

to avert the nuclear option. the democrats gave a good deal. they gave up two nominees for lead nlrb which is the national labor relations board which is one of the most important agencies for organized labor. because of the gridlock in washington and a lack of approval for these nominees, the nlnb and powerless. there was a court ruling that ruled that the nominees that president obama, there were unconstitutional because of how their recess appointee. democrats said we will withdraw those two nominees. president obama quickly nominated two replacements after the deal was reached and they will go through the committee, that health and labor committee this week and should be on the floor as early as next week

harry reid got the nlnb working but got richard cordray confirmed. that was a major battle between the parties. the he still has the power if he was to go back to it. host: it sounds like you are saying this is day win for democrats. guest: absolutely. some republicans were divided on the deal. at the same time, the republicans say that those two unconstitutional picks are not going to be at the nlrb. they say they got that but overall, harry reid had more lovers but also got a good deal.

host: john is from michigan on a republican line. caller: my outlook of what will happen in the congress is we are just going to be looking at more gridlock. my next question is to the commentator. i watch c-span pretty much every morning. i noticed that the republicans get skipped in the process quite often. my other comment is i also noticed that of your callers, i don't know if you realize it, but only 30% of the population is black in this country and you are pretty much adding 40% of how much the call in. host: are you concerned about the numbers? we want everybody to call in on c-span and give their opinion.

are you concerned because we pull them up as the calls come in. caller: i have called and every morning and don't get through. i get through maybe once per year. i noticed that even this morning, you skipped a republican in your process. yesterday, there was instances where you had 10 callers, two were republicans. host: we have a rule on c-span of 30 days before you can call in again. if you're concerned you do not get through, try every 30 days. we'll continue our discussion about the week ahead on capitol hill, the next two weeks ahead before the august recess. from texarkana, texas, independent line. are you there? caller: yes, sir.

[indiscernible] what about immigration? democrats are for about some republicans are for cheap labor. can we get this straightened out? will the people from -- with the most money win? host: campaign finance and emigration. guest: there are legislations that democrats have introduced on public financing of campaigns that is not a top priority on capitol hill. as far as immigration, the big

difference between the debate now and the debate during the bush administration when immigration bill passed the senate but did not get to his desk is that big business and organized labor are on the same page 3 organized labor back then had major concerns that are members would lose jobs. this time around, labor is on board and the chamber of commerce is on board and there are prominent republicans ranging from grover norquist to karl rove who are for comprehensive immigration reform legislation great in the house there are many conservatives who don't like that bill. host: virginia from port orchard, washington, on our democratic line. caller: i'm a very old lady. i like the quality we showed to the poor and the people who are ill and the black people.

it is time that congress, especially the house, changes the tax laws. some immigrants came on a boat or an airplane or some walked. i wish there was a little more humanity and the republican side. they need to see the hundred people. congress need to see how many people are overweight. host: she brings up tax reform in her comments. do we see anything moving forward on a comprehensive tax reform? guest: the push for it will happen in the fall. the senate finance committee chairman max baucus and the winds and means committee dave camp have a good relationship

and have been going on the right and think they can defy the odds and bring together a tax reform bill even though the parties don't agree. at the same time, camp and baucus worked well together and there will make date -- they will make a major push. host: bob casack, managing editor of "the hill" newspaper. are in boring and will be donna christiansen. then representative patrick mchenry.

from the national association of the self-employed. the house is coming back in about 20 minutes. they are working on a build that is dealing with information sharing and weapons of mass assertion. until then, a conversation of infrastructure. we take a look at how your money is at work in a different federal her grant, and this week we are looking at that drinking water systems. a recent epa surveyed noted the u.s. will need to invest over the next 20 years $384 billion to repair and replace the aging water systems. here to walk us through is tom curtis, a deputy executive

director for the american water works association. talk about this situation in prince george's county that came up last week and made headlines out of the region. what does it tell us about the state of water systems nationwide? guest: i am pleased to be with you this morning. i am not familiar with details of the situation in prince george's county. i can't say it reflects a much broader problem with the state of america's on her infrastructure. first, let's reflect on how critical this infrastructure is. it supports public health, hygiene, fire protection, our economy, and our quality of life. he cannot live without it. water and wastewater infrastructures are critical. it is no question we face

increased spending on the reinvestment, rebuilding, refurbishment of this infrastructure. host: what is the american water works association? who do you work for question mark guest: it is a nonprofit technical educational society, dedicated to solving water problems. our focus has been on safe drinking water, but we deal with wastewater, storm water, water reuse, conservation, and all water issues, frankly. the have about 50,000 members, and our utility member server about 80% of the american people with safe and affordable water. talking about how federal dollars are at work, but systems operate on local rates and fees, correct? correct.

last year, total spending on water and wastewater infrastructure in the united states was a little over $111 billion, about 44 billion dollars of that was for investment in new or upgraded treatment plants, storage facilities, and pipe networks. the balance of that was operations and maintenance. the federal government offers no help for operating and maintaining utilities, and we think that is the appropriate thing. of the capital investment, about 94% of that is local money. the federal government offers some loans to a number of programs. about one percent of that total spending is in the form of federal grants, which are targeted exclusively to very small, very hard-pressed communities that are without

substantial grant assistance and would not be able to do the job they have to do. host: give us more about how the 300 $84 billion over the next 20 years, for upgrades and texas, there is that money going to coming from? will the local rates not be able to keep up with that funding? guest: local spending will have to keep up. it means some water bills will go up. i would say the $384 billion figure is a considerably lower figure. the american water association estimated last year over a 25- and 40-year. our estimate is for drinking water infrastructure, we face a need of about one dollar

trillion in the next 25 years, and we can be confident that wastewater needs are about the same. host: we shared stats on epa estimate of 384 billion dollars. i want to show you stats up u.s. water systems in general. 264 million residents are served tems.,000 water sys aboutsystems break 540,000 times a year. this is from a story in a magazine in washington. you talking water issues. curtis from the american water works association. if you have questions or comments, or stories about water systems and your water system in your local community, give us a

ring. we will split up by region. give us information about the average age of water systems in the u.s. and the average lifespan of water pipes. guest: that is an important question. it is hard to give a national average age of water pipes. it is true generally that andems in the northeast some parts of the upper midwest are older than systems in the west and south. factor is not the only that determines the life expectancy of a pipe. it is important, but not the only one. pipe size, material, the way it was buried in the ground, the bed it lies on, the operation of

external forces like vibrations from overhead traffic, those are critical factors in how long a pipe last. the job utilities do is understand the pipe dynamics of their own systems to do what we call advanced asset management. they assess continuously and continuously monitor the conditions of their pipes. that is what pg county showed, the washington suburban sanitary commission did just that. they were on top of the problem, monitoring, took corrective steps to cover what we could been a catastrophic water main break. george'st week prince braces for water loss. the repair of the main would affect over 100,000 people. of the repair work being

done there. we saw a picture of a pipe that was being replaced, if we can go to a question on twitter talking about those pipes. what percentage of pipes are ceramic and plastic? is there a in effort to make them all plastic? not have information on what percentage might be ceramic or plastic. i can't say every type of i can say every type of highway -- pipe has a use. i described earlier about where the pipe would be placed, what job it has to do, what kind of external and firemen to might be operating in that pie. it is almost impossible to say there is one best pipe. host: is there a certain type of pipe that is trying to be phased out? guest: i do not think so. there've been changes in techniques and materialsd the ',

we almost exclusively use cast iron or wood. this materials are not used. wood is not used anywhere. then we saw various types of polyethylene and plastic pipes humming into use, along with concrete pipes. --h type of pipe is good for it would be best in some circumstances and maybe not so good in others. that is a a decision your local water system has to make. host: a question on twitter. what are the high-risk areas that need repairs? guest: everywhere in the u.s. needs to upgrade and maintain water systems. water infrastructure is critical. hopefully your customers, your viewers are watching the show, with a cup of their favorite

morning beverage in front of them. remember, no water, no coffee. hygiene, no fire protection, no "restaurants or hotels or other businesses. these are critical infrastructures, and largely the pipe network that we now rely on was built in our parents and grandparents. most of the systems were built starting and expanded after , and asr i populations exploded, that was ii.lerated after world war pipe networks had to expand to accommodate at surge in population. much of the pipe that we rely on was laid down in the ground and paid for by our grandparents. the heights last a long time, but they are not immortal. there comes a day when you

cannot live any longer on the investment the earlier generations made. host: we are talking with tom curtis from the american water works association. where taking your calls and tweet us. we want to get your calls and questions about water systems. we will go to art from michigan. good morning, you are on with tom curtis. caller: good morning. i have several concerns. the number one is the fluoride additives to the water. fluoride is a very reactive product. i'm sure pipes would last longer if we had not added fluoride. some the 1930's, enterprising salesman from the fertilizer industry said we need to add this to our teeth and sold it to dentists say it would be great. now we have toothpaste. it has the fluoride in it, which is right to our teeth. why do we have it in our water?

i'm sure a tremendous amount of health problems we have is checking for david water. -- is drinking for david water. absolutely. american water works association has looked into this, and we are following the recommendations of the world have organization, centers for disease control, as well as the american medical and dental associations in recommending community sortation of water. ofject to local acceptance an informed public process. we do not think until to live these four should force something on a majority of customers but the health water aref fluoride

beyond dispute. they bring significant that'll health benefits as well as stronger bones, especially for growing children. i know there are will who would attribute fluoridation to an enterprising salesman. he must've been enterprising to have convinced the u.s. centers disease control and other associates i mentioned about health benefits of reasonable amounts of fluoride. caller: i have two other questions. fracking and bottled water. fracking is an issue in michigan, and a lot of areas around the country. , to getoleum industry more oil and gas, uses enormous amounts of water, and i understand this water cannot be

reentered into the public system. it is totally polluted. how do we deal with that? guest: a good question and another issue that awwa has looked into as a part of the total space. there's no question at oil and gas production is associated with water impact. most of the impact is actually related to water that comes up from deep underground reservoirs with oil and gas. if not the fracking process or say that is as much of an issue in most places. the fracking process may last few hours or days in the lifespan of a gas well, and accounts for for some hundreds of thousands of wagallons of water. when that water comes to the surface, it has to be carefully

and either treated reinjected deep underground where it cannot do harm or treated and released into the thefiremen to -- into environment. host: how much of the system is owned by the public? guest: another good question. 88% of americans are served by publicly owned water systems, and about 12% are served by private water systems. i am not aware of any data that shows different levels of service, different levels of safety between public and privately owned water systems. the american water works association please the decision on whether or not the asset should be publicly owned or in private ownership is really a local one. yhat is one that your cit

council needs to make. texas, you're on the air with tom. caller: my question is about fracking as well. it was somewhat answered with regard to the water waste. it was not entirely answered thatse if we are drilling deeply, i am wondering how much it is affecting our water tables that are being depleted at an alarming rate. guest: thanks for the question. i think we have to look at a number -- at the numbers of the use of water in the u.s.. 50% of the water that is taken out of water reservoirs of all kinds, underground water, surface water, and lakes, half of that goes to thermo elect strict power production.

then condensed and returned to the environment. about one/three of the water used in the u.s. is used for irrigation agriculture, and most of the depletion of underground arefers that i am aware of tied to irrigation agriculture, not to energy production. oil and gas reservoirs are typically many thousands of feet below drinking water sources. drinking water sources, under grant of -- underground water is hundreds to maybe a thousand feet below ground. it is often a very pristine water. oil and gas is found far lower than that. isusands of feet low there drinking water sources, and the water in oil and gas formations is already highly contaminated. as heavy nettles and other things which is why it has to be

carefully treated before it can be returned. take it forch we granted until we do not have clean water. i will drink from a spring, but will it stay that pristine? we have talked about energy policy. talk about recent drought and wildfires, especially affecting the west and the united states, and how those have affected the water systems. guest: there is no question that droughts and wildfires affect water systems. when you drought condition, by definition there is less rain or no rain. surface water supplies get lower . water demand often goes up as people are more interested in watering their lawns and so forth. ,ildfires can destroy forests and healthy forests to my healthy watersheds offers

critical reduction to public water supplies. he have to be concerned about both drought and wildfire. host: we are talking with tom curtis, at the american water works association. previously he worked as the drifter of national resources for the national governors association and the deputy director of the environmental council of the states. we are taking your calls with tom curtis. bill is up next from beverly hills, california. good morning. [indiscernible] the fluoride and contamination in the water, makes me mad is the only water i drink is-- --t: we will go to rick from >> the house is coming in now. following order. h.r. 1542 by the yeas and nays.

h.con.res. 44 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meehan, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1542, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1542, a bill to amend the homeland security act of 2002 to establish weapons of mass destruction intelligence and information sharing functions of the office of intelligence and analyst -- analysis of the department of homeland security and to require dissemination of information analyzed by the department to entities with responsibilities relating to homeland security and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill? members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 388. the nays are 3. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ribble, to suspend the rules and agree to h. con. res. 44 on which the

yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: house calendar number 45, house concurrent resolution 44, concurrent resolution authorizing the use of the capitol grounds for the district of columbia special olympics law enforcement torch run. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 388, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the concurrent resolution is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 1213. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognize for one minute. the house will be in order. members will please take their conversations off the floor. he house will be in order.

the gentleman may proceed. mr. thompson: last week, a group of house and senate members troduced legislative reforms for congress, the group was called no labels a group that meets to find common ground on policy issues. i reach across the aisle on every single piece of legislation i introduce. it's the only way to get something done in this town. but this group was looking to create a larger dialogue among members of congress from different parties. the package of never-before-seen bills they introduced last week might not solve all the nation's problems but they do demonstrate how demon ground can be acheed, how democrats and republicans can work together as problem solvers. the more members we can bring together on a consistent basis helps us build trust and a

legislative branch that functions a whole lot better. thank you and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the house is not in order. members will take their conversations off the floor. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i have spoken to my constituents who are concerned about the viability of social security, they want big ideas and long-term solutions. instead there are solutions right now and proposals to switch to a chain c.p.i. formula to calculate cost of living adjustments for social security beneficiaries to save money. this would reduets benefits and only extend social security solvency for only two years. i do north support this. it redues the amount of social

security checks but not the rising cost of health care, water bills or other fixed costs seniors continue to face. the importance of social security is evident in the lives of millions of ben fibaries, including my own father and grandmother. mr. swal well: it's an earned -- r. swal well: it's an -- mr. swalwell: it's an earned benefit seniors have paid into their entire working lives. instead of reducing benefits for chain c.p.i., i believe we should raise the cap on payroll contributions. currently, social security tacks are only collected on the $115,000 of earnings. by raising the cap, we could raise solvency without cutting benefits. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from west virginia seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from west virginia is recognized for ne minute.

>> this week, the house will consider two pieces of legislation that will improve lives of many. i rise in support of the energy consumers relief act. mrs. capito: the coal users act will stop the food and drug administration -- the federal enacting new regulations. it would cost thousands of jobs and increase electricity bills, and rehinder the reuse of coal residuals, guarantees more coal afternoon would end up in land fills. the house will also consider the energy consumers relief act. the legislation requires that any time e.p.a. proposes legislation that would cost more than $1 billion that it is to be

reviewed by other agencies including the department of energy. if the secretary of nrbling determines that a rule would have adverse effects on the economy such as unemployment wages and consumers prices, business and manufacturing activity, the results must be made available to the public. thousands of workers have been laid offful we have to get back to creating jobs in this country and these two jobs will do -- bills will do that the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. although the house continues to ignore climate changes, others are busy asaysing options to address the situation this nation and our world will face in a wormer world. mr. tonko: the united states draft assessment suggests we have work to do to remain a --

to maintain a reliable, modern transportation system. the draft states that sea level rise, storm surge, extreme weather events and other manifest cases of climate change are reducing the reliability and capacity of our transportation system in many ways. the good news is the negative impact can be retaosed through rerouting, mode change and other ataptive action, we adapt -- if we nst in our transportation net. the state should not have to to this exercise alone. the federal government should address chi mat change. we need to ensure our transportation network serve ours nation's needs well into the future, all while creating jobs. stop denying reality, let's address cly mad change and move our nation and the world forward. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek

recognition? >> 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. >> i congratulate maple grove for becoming minnesota's newest beyond the yellow ribbon community. mr. paulsen: they help ensure that our military members and families have a strong support structure at home in their community. beyond the yellow ribbon is a unique program formed by the minnesota national guard to support the thousands of service members who served since 9/11. it provides resources and training to service members and their families before, during, an after deployment, helping them find jobs and integrate back into their community. as a yellow ribbon city, maple grove has gone above and beyond in supporting our troops and delivering a compassionate attitude, ensuring that our military members when they come

home, they come all the way home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. mr. bishop: i rise to bring attention to the plight -- mr. johnson: i rise to bring attention to the plight of the founder of the bahrain teachers' association who was arrested after taking part in protests in 2011. for this so-called crime he was tortured and sentenced to five years in prison by a military court. as a member of the tom lantos human rights commission, i call for the immediate release of him and all the prisoners of conscience. he is a nonviolent activist imprisoned for his beliefs, his release would send a message that the bahraini government cares about freedom, prosperity, and justice for all of its

citizens. i thank my colleagues and 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? >> mr. speaker, 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. mr. poe: mr. speaker, government agencies have been keeping track of american's whereabouts by amassing databases of millions of our license plates by using license plate scanners. unbeknownst to americans, government technology records our movement from the time we get in our car in the morning, to every place we stop in the day, to the time we drive home. but this data can be stored indefinitely. this reminds me of the tais when i was in the soviet union and saw how government spied on its citizens constantly. do we really want a government that has the authority to record us anywhere we go during the day or during the night? we know by recent experience abusive government cannot be trusted with dragnet information

data files it collects on americans. to me, freedom includes government not keeping personal daily log on individuals and their activities. none of these activities are the government's business. the right of privacy and the right to be left alobe include the right to keep snooping government surveillance out of our lives. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> as a veteran of iraq and afghanistan, i'm very concerned about the so-called zero option that was floated by the president. hundreds of thousands have fought for a victory for the afghan people and on the eevepb of victory for the afghan people, the president is floating the option of no troops post-2014. is the taliban cheering that discussion or are they scared of it? i would say that they are cheering the idea of no u.s. troupes. mr. kinzinger: 60% of the afghan people are under the age of 20.

it is a new society. mr. speaker, i'm concerned that we're on the verge of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. i would call on the president to announce a smaller post-2014 force and send a message to the taliban that we will not back down and you will never rule afghanistan again. and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. culberson of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from alabama, mrs. roby, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mrs. roby: thank you, mr. speaker. i am so pleased to have the opportunity tonight to b we her

our colleagues, eager to discuss solutions, solutions for our country, solutions for our economy. and so i'm just going to invite my colleagues to participate in this conversation as they see fit. but, mr. speaker, i want to just point out to you that we have reached out to our constituents about this leadership hour onight on twitter, using #forjobs, and, mr. speaker, we are hopeful that tonight during this hour we will continue that conversation, mr. speaker, with our constituents at #forjobs. i've got a lot of comments from my constituents back home that i'm eager to share as we go along through this hour. but i want to just start off by pointing out what many of you may have already read and that was that the president has stated that he plans to pivot, now once again, back to jobs and

the economy. and i thought, well, that's great news. that's what we've been pushing here. many of you have seen us carrying around our cards, our laminated cards that talk about all the jobs bills that we've passed in this congress and the last, trying to promote economic growth in this country, to help get hardworking, tax-paying americans back to work. but i lost my enthusiasm when buried in that article was the president's statement and it was this -- quotes, white house officials said speeches will not offer new proposals or approaches. so we're going to pivot back to jobs and the question, but we have no new approaches and we have no new ideas. and we're just -- that to me is a pivoting of message and not a pivoting of policy. we're watching all of us have stories of going back to our district and meeting with american families that continue to struggle and the rhetoric

that we all feel is not helping the reality of the situation of the people that we were sent here to represent. so, we're not losing faith or the american people aren't losing faith because the president's message isn't working. they're losing faith because his policies aren't working. and i'm the first to say, we've got to quit doing a lot of this pointing fingers. so i'm hopeful that tonight in this conversation, and i have some solutions that i'd like to put out there, you can't criticize without coming behind it and offering a solution. we've done that continuously in this house, mr. speaker, and we'll continue to do so. >> well, thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentlelady from alabama for organizing this and it's great to be joined with you on this very important subject. mr. kinzinger: of idea of, you know, over 7.5% of our fellow neighbors in illinois, by the way, the president's home state of illinois is higher than 7.5%. you can see in illinois, if you

want to see what big government's going to eventually do, just take a look in my home state. you're going to see people that are desperately searching for work, that wake up every day just wondering if they're going to get a paycheck and then if they have a job, they're wondering, is in the last day? am i going to go into work today and get that pink slip? aim going to go into work today and have to come home and tell my wife or my husband or my kids that we're going to have to tighten the belt because dad or mom just lost their job? illinois' been hit very hard. the reason illinois' been hit very hard is -- it's not because it's cold. it is cold in illinois sometimes in the winter. my friend from colorado can talk about that, too. it's not because it's flat, although parts of illinois are very flat. illinois in fact used to be and still maintains some edge, but used to be the powerhouse for manufacturing in the country. but we've seen a disappearing manufacturing in the bipartisan

spirit of not trying to point too many fingers, i'll say that's happened under all administrations, where we've seen manufacturing leave. but the one difference between illinois and what we've seen in the states that surround us is a big, stifling, bloated brach government. a government that is so big it takes away the opportunity for the free market to breathe. mr. speaker, i understand and i'll be the first to admit that my party, the republican party, has not done a great job always of messaging. i think there's an understatement of the century. sometimes we get absorbed in the idea of numbers and we talk about what it means to balance the budget, but we don't explain why we want to balance the budget. we talk about jobs -- our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the middle class and lower income. mr. speaker, my father ran a homeless shelter and he did this for a couple of decades. i was raised in an environment to understand what conservatism and how that works with those that are homeless and down and

out. my mom's a public school teacher. i understand the importance of public education in our society. and i understand that i became a republican because i believe that a kid born in inner city chicago, just 40 or 50 minutes from my house, should have the same opportunity as a kid born in illinois where i live or in a wealthy suburban such ush, should have every -- suburb, should have every opportunity to find special achievement, to get an education, to be successful. i look forward to having this conversation. and talking about the fact that there is a compassion for those that need help. and the fact that too many people are out of work today. my colleague from colorado, mr. gardner, would like to say something so i yield to you sir. mr. gardner: -- on the economy and those things that we truly need to get under control in this country in order to build better lives for our families

and families across this nation. thank you, mr. speaker, for the time tonight. and i notice the gentleman from illinois did say that his district was flat. i think it surprises a lot of people when i say, look, i represent the second largest geographic area in the state of colorado in congress and most of my district is flat as well. i understand what the gentleman is talking about when it comes to vast areas of great flat land in the high plains of colorado. when we got elected in 2010, i think most of us, the three of of us here tonight and we may be joined by others tonight, who all got elected in 2010 because we wanted to find a way to make america work again. to empower the people around this country, whether it was the inner cities of our biggest areas, to people in rural areas, across colorado and this nation. empower them to build the life that they always wanted to, to pursue their dreams, to make sure that the american spirit is alive and well.

and i think most of us recognize that we do that when we give people the powers to do that for themselves. to get government out of the way and let america work. to tear down regulations that prevent job creation, to help make sure that access to capital is easier, not more difficult. that energy is more affordable, not more costly. and over the past couple of years we have pursued policies to do just that. in fact, this upcoming week we will be voting on legislation to make sure that energy policies don't drive up the cost that it takes to power our economy. but it actually makes sure that we have a guard, a safeguard over regulations that cost too much. to make sure that the department of energy is paying attention to what's happening at the e.p.a. in terms of regulations. we've passed legislation to make it easier for people in small dollar amounts to loan money to their neighbors, to their friends, to invest in businesses that they're excited about, to try to tear down hurdles to invest at the individual level.

you don't need a stock broker down on wall street to figure out how to get involved in the american economy. we've passed legislation that allows individuals to get involved at the very startup level of companies, innovation, entrepreneurs around this country. and we did it because we know that there's people with incredible ideas of how to create opportunity. incredible ideas of how to create new wealth, where none existed before. in my district, whether it's agriculture, whether it's energy, whether it's high-tech, entrepreneurs are leading this nation. and i know the gentlelady from alabama and illinois has similar experiences. and so, we talk tonight about what we can do for this country, what we have done for this country. legislation that's coming up will be introducing more. but we'll also be talking about the impediments we have to a healthy and a full economic recovery and that's the president's plan. and while the president talks a lot about the economy, and i hear that he's going to be talking once again about the economy, unfortunately his

actions haven't matched up and the people of this country are still suffering. mrs. roby: buried in that article was that when the president gives these speeches over the course of the next few days, there will be no new approaches or ideas. and i also said that we can't stand here and criticize without offering our own recommendations about how we can do this better and how we feel like we have done it better and offered real solutions for hardworking americans. and i wanted to compare some of the things that we've done with what i'm hearing from -- directly from my constituents and, mr. speaker, tonight specifically we wanted to communicate with our constituents using #4jobs and these are some of the comments that we've gotten. chris ray from prattville, alabama, says, no business is going to risk hiring full-time employees like they did in the past because they will have to provide health care due to

obamacare. change that and dreals the widening skill gap and i think businesses will begin to hire en masse. so it's a regulation problem and an education problem in my opinion. that's from chris ray from prattville. let's look at our approach and how that matches up with the concerns of our constituents. we need to, instead of pick of otting back to -- pivoting back to no new ideas, because we remained focused on jobs and the economy, let's pivot away from obamacare to patient-centered heament care that actually improves -- health care that actually improves health care, brings down the cost, takes a market approach to help straining families and make it -- this health care law making it harder for small businesses to hire. a health care system that ensures that when you're sick, you and your doctor are the ones that are in the driver's seat of making the decisions and then to address mr. ray from prattville, alabama's, concerns about overburdensome regulations. we want to pivot again back to

all of these bills that we've offered, that ease burdensome regulations so that businesses are free to expand and invest and hire more people so more people have more jobs. so what regulations, all of us -- i could look at any one of you and you would say, keystone x.l. pipeline, the hindrance of allowing that to move forward. replacement to the health care law. i had a bill, the working families flexibility act, that amended part of the fair labor standards act. a 70-year-old restriction that doesn't allow compensatory time in lieu of cash payments for overtime in the private sector which would help these very americans that we're talking about. providing flexibility in the work force. uncertainty that we see. i mean, we've stood on this floor many nights like this talking about testimonials that we've heard directly from business owners and it just never ceases to amaze me that we're having these discussions here. but we're all about to go home

august and i'd love to hear from even our colleagues on the other side of the aisle about what they're hearing from their businesses. do they feel certainty? do they feel like they can ramp things up and hire more people in this uncertain environment, with all of this overburdensome regulations that we're trying so hard to ease so more americans can have jobs? mr. gardner: i would like to add to that. mr. kinzinger: we talk about regulations. the vast majority of americans, myself included, are not small business owners. and so the vast majority of americans can listen to this and say, i understand in theory what's being said but it's not something i necessarily feel. let's put this in a way a lot of people can relate to. if you're looking to buy a house, you have a big decision to make, you're ready to buy a new house. you have a family to provide for, you know what your budget

is what you can afford on a mortgage, what you can afford for property taxes. let's say there's a lot of government uncertainty out there. let's say you may not have a job in six months buzz of this economy. you may be saying, boy, i just don't know what my cash flow is going to be like and i don't know if it's going to be there. let's relate that to the bigger economy. these companies don't necessarily know what is going to be brought and put before them by washington, d.c., what it's going to cost them. let's say your local government was threatening to raise property taxes in a major way. that comes into play. let's say there was a threat of losing your home mortgage interest deduction, so as you put that into play, you're trying to the side, do i buy this house? now that's up in the air you watch television and all over television the idea is, homes are collapsing in value you remember that from a few years ago. that's uncertainty. that's the kind of uncertainty that everyday americans feel.

the kind of uncertainty that you wake up sometimes in a cold sweat because you don't necessarily know what the next month is going to look like. mr. speaker, that's our point is take that uncertainty that an individual feels, then put that on a bigger level of a business owner. a business owner who sometimes is the last person to get paid because they sign everybody else's paycheck first. sometimes these small business owners are literally in tears at night, they're in bed, they don't know whether to make payroll, they know they have five or 10 people that are relying on them to provide that paycheck because they have families too. that's a lot of pressure. so we're not talking about making businesses not pay taxes. we're not talking about getting rid of all regulations and letting this be the wild west, we're talking about creating a level of certainty that these businesses can plan and they can begin to know what they can do and take a deep breath,

readjust. mrs. roby: i want to share something i posted on facebook last week, it was an article, many of you may have seen it, it was in "the washington post" last wednesday. this is what i wrote. if you've ever wondered just how ridiculous federal regulations can be just ask marty the magician this front page "washington post" article tells e story about how usda children's equire a rabbit to license his he uses in tricks. officials used good intentions and vague laws to expand outreach of the total bureaucracy. if you haven't deeb that, get online and find a coppy of it.

it is a funny story but it's really sad at the same time. it shows and highlights exactly what you're talking about far guy that just wants to pull a rabbit out of a hat for some kidse at a birthday party. >>ive talked to countless individuals, business ownersing people who wanted to start a business, that talk about what it took for them to get started. some of them maxed out every credit card that they have. they applied for more credit cards just to max out to get the business off the ground. mr. gardner: others are say, i have some great ideas, we could grow, we could expand, i could start my own business but we can't because we don't have the means. but your point about about requiring a license for somebody's rabbit, the "wall street journal" talked a bt a a competitive enterprise institute study estimating that federal regulations cost over $1. trillion. $15,000 for every american household.

$15,000 before you can start your business, before you do anything else, that's built into the cost of doing business. that's already part of the fact that you have to overcome the regulations. $1.8 trillion is about the same size as canada's g.d.p. this gross domestic product of can tasm we are regulating this country to the size of canada's gross domestic product yet we're hoping to solve our unemployment problem by getting people to put it all on the line, rsk their houses, their lives to go out and start something, to go out and take a risk, yet we have regulations $15,000 every household. how can we expect this economy to recover when we have the uncertainty, whether it's the president's health care bill, whether it's uncertainty over energy regulations, coal ash bills we'll be dealing with this week or indeed licensing a abbit at usda.

>> we hear this, the house of representatives is filled with rhetoric, probably been like that since the day it was built, the day it was created. we hear that our party only cares about big business, only about the 1%, we talked about taking food from the mouths of children, right? any sane, reasonable person knows that's not the case. any sane, reasonable person knows that both sides of the aisle are passionate about the future of their country. enge it's ok to have -- i think it's ok to have a conversation about how we get there i believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want their country to be successful. mr. kinzinger: i think they know we want to be successful. we can have this conversation. this is so hopeful. let me ask, in having a fair and honest debate about this, let's see what the president's plans are. we hear constantly more an more

spending. the last stimulus bill that was passed that -- at midnight, basically, with a lot of christmas tree ornaments for everybody to get yes votes and only about 6% of that actually went to infrastructure which is the job of the federal government in the first place as outlined in the constitution. but interestingly to me, we spent in one night almost as much money, maybe more money, but almost as much money as we have spent in iraq to that component. and what did we get for it? what did we get for it? we had a promise of unemployment staying low, it didn't. look, i get it. i believe the president, i believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really thought this would be the thing that worked. i realy believe they believe that. but it didn't. history shows it didn't. history shows this didn't work. are we going to really, honestly revisit the idea of more and more stimulus spending?

mr. gardner: the gentleman brings up a good point. one instance of stimulus spending in my district where it's threatened jobs, that was a program that came out of the b-top grant program to try to provide broadband to unserved an underserved areas across the country a noble purpose, trying to make sure we're connected to internet technologies we need with high speed to make sure we're able to educate children and a competitive work force. but unfortunately, the money out of the stimulus was used to duplicate services by the private sector. in some areas, they over built 100% with government money services, fiberoptic cables, that was already in place by the private sector. many of these companies are very small, small co-ops, telecoms. they can't afford to have someone come in and undermine them with the free government money trying to offer under cost services. yet that's exactly what happened

in the stimulus will bill. they were providing the service yet the government came in and laid a lean right next to the line that existed there. that's what happened in the stimulus bill. ebb stead of creating jobs, it undermined our ability to build the private sector up. i know the gentlelady from alabama has been an incredible leader. mrs. roby: i was thinking, part of the president's -- part of this article that came out, republicans' approach to just slashing spending. if any of us do not recognize we are spending well beyond our means, we are trillions of dollars in debt, our fourth year with over trillion dollar deficit. my kids are the reason i'm here, i'm fighting for this. that generation that's going to carry this burden after we're all gone. and you know, for us to not

first admit that we have a problem as we move toward finding solutions and gentleman mitting -- admitting we are spending well beyond our means, that we have to rein in spending, we have to change the proach, that's when we see hardworking americans, tax paying families again to be able to pick up and make that investment that you mentioned into the business so that they can be the jobs creators. his is great, i see for my kids' future that this is how we're going to get this country back on track. >> it's a pleasure to join this conversation, i thank the gentlelady from alabama for starting it. we heard this phrase, for years now, jobs, i've been here a little over sex months, maybe seven months, i've been looking

at it from the outside, i haven't seen that pivot to jobs. sometimes folks hear that phrase in washington, d.c. and they think pivot to jobs, well, what they really mean is pivot to government. that's what we've seen. every time they think they're going do something to help the job market, they pivot to more and more government. when they passed the health care bill, it was suggested this would be a job creator. it hasn't been. we're talking to businesses time and again who are not hiring people. had a great conversation with somebody in my district, very tough conversation. you know. she was upset because her hours were being cut back because of the health care bill. we see this across the country, not just in my district. then we see more government as a proposal for more jobs, but we see the regulations coming out of this town that are hurting

the jobs in my district. just last week, we learned that some power plant is going to be closing in western pennsylvania. we talk about not in my district but there are people who support those power plants by providing things to those power plants, they have jobs as truckers, shippers, miners. more regulations coming out of is town by the federal elite doesn't help jobs. i'm glad that we're going to pivot to jobs. i talked about how you get jobs going in this country for quite a long time now. three stumbled onto hours, the first -- the three rmbing's, like we had in school, the first r is repeal. the obama administration has acknowledged problems with the

bill by coming without out with a unilateral action saying big business, don't worry, you don't have to comply with this. but the everyday folks have to comply system of this house last week took an action to provide some relief there. you know, we'll give the president the authority that he assumed unilaterally, it needs to come from this house, it's called the rule of law, the president -- we have -- it's our authority to give that rate. so we passed a bill to say, you know what, take another year. and to the individuals who are going to be struggling, give them the same break too. mr. gardner: you make some great points. i think of employers i have talked to in my district who have to retaos their work force,

or employees who have had their hours reduced, wropt to interrupt your comment bus you are pointing out how this is hurting the economy. as the president pivots to jobs, perhaps he should pivot away from the bad poll icies driving this downward. >> we're going to consider the -- these are people that aren't accountable. here in the house, we're accountable. we get a performance review every two years. i tell the people in my district i'm their employee and i get a performance review every couple of years. well, you know, the regulators, and a balance on. so there's a thing calls the rains act, very simple bell, it says, look, if an agency puts

out a regulation that's going to have an impact on this economy of $100 million or more, then as the gentleman from colorado said earlier, the s.b.a., small business administration, said the cost of complying with the regulations in our federal register is $1. trillion across the economy. the rains act says if you have $100 million or more, it comes back to congress for a vote. we get to take accountability so we get to assess whether the cost benefit is going to be good for this economy and good for the american people. otherwise, the out of control government is going to choke, continue to choke, our communities, our businesses, and what happens? middle class jobs are lost. power plant workers. you can't replace jobs like that. the gentleman -- mr. gard her: the gentleman -- mr. gardner: the gentleman from pennsylvania, i would point out, this isn't a radical republican idea. the idea behind the rains act is

embraced in many states across the country right now. in colorado we have the rule review bill, when an agency, whether the department of health or department of agriculture, issues a new regulation, it comes to congress for -- to the state legislature for a vote by the state legislature. the house, the state senate, the state house, they vote up or down on whether or not that regulation is in the best interest of the people of colorado if it complies with the rule of the legislature and if the executive branch is carrying it out in the right way. the rains act is not some crazy idea, it's something that's in use right now to protect our my from overreach. >> i want to briefly reminds the people of the state of illinois. mr. kinzinger: i love my state, i lived there most of my life except my time in the military but let's look at that approach. that approach has been a regulatory approach. that's been a big government approach. in fact, you look at again the south part of chicago and you

see people -- i think it was like nine people killed just this last week. unreal. i mean, more than will you find killed in afghanistan. and this is an american city. how's the best way to fix that? it's to pull people out of poverty. illinois has a big government. illinois has very generous stuff they give but illinois does not -- is not good lately at generating jobs. so is big -- has big government helped those people in a tough situation in south chicago? no. you know what would help the people in south chicago? is an opportunity to go out, work hard, earn a living and an opportunity to get ahead. that's what this is about. this is about how do we give everybody the opportunity that all of us speaking on the floor of the house of representative, who have all different backgrounds, that we got, where it was from our parents or from our education or from whatever it was, how do we ensure we replicate that? >> the good news is that we can do that. if we empower our communities

and empower individuals, empower families, we can do that. the solutions are not inside this beltway. they're out there. and washington needs to get out of the way so that people can take their own initiative. mr. rothfus: and build those real economies out there. the third hour i talk about. we got repeal obamacare, replace it. with commonsense, patient-centered reform that gets care to people. reins act, stop the overregulating. and thirdly, reform. reform our tax code. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, the highest business taxes in the world. this is a world economy. 95% of the consumers in the world are outside our borders. we need to be competing for the world's capital to come here, to invest in our communities. i was talking with a business in my district who is a subsidiary,

they have a foreign owner, but they were trying to convince the foreign owner to invest in our country. which would be a good thing. because that's going to mean more jobs. and the parent company said, you're just not competitive right now. lost opportunity. our corporate tax rate is 35%. and while -- do corporations really pay that? our tax code is so riddled with loopholes and picking winners and losers, rather than having a competitive, fair playing field. we have to move to have the most competitive tax system in the world. mr. gardner: i was speaking to a business in my district several months ago and they had a conversation with somebody who isn't interested in reducing the burden on american families by making common sense out of our tax code, creating a flairer, flatter tax system. they were talking about --

fairer, flatter tax system. they were talking about, this is a manufacturing business in colorado, and they were talking about what their tax rate is and they've looked at every way, every provision, every code possible to try to figure out how to lower that rate and they can't go any further. they're still in the mid 30%'s -- excuse me, lower 30%'s. and the response they got from this leggetser was, well, then you just need to hire a new accountant. instead of actually trying to get to real reform of our tax code, to lower the rate, flatten ly were they actual told, just get a new accountant because they're not doing the right job. that's not how we're going to create jobs in this country. mr. kinzinger: the great point on that is why do we want to lower the tax rate, right? is it because we want to protect the 1%? oh, i've heard that 1,000 times, right? and i'll be honest, i probably haven't been the best at coming back at that and explaining why we want to lower the tax code, why we want a fair tax code for everybody, a tax that people pay what they need to pay to the

government so they aren't overcharged. but then people aren't also alud to get away with being undercharged. because on an individual level, you literally have mothers filling their advance up with gasoline, buying groceries and not able to afford to feed their children because the government in some cases take 1/3 of what these single mothers make. they just take it. and then we see people that can get away with all the loop home holes in the system, they -- loopholes in the system, they hire enough accountants and they don't pay that percent. so let's make it fair for everybody. mrs. roby: as far as the government goes, we can't point fingers at somebody that goes and is smart and figures out how to make themselves. what we do is we fix the problem which is the underlying code by making it fairer and flatter and i'll just say, we were telling -- saying earlier, mr. speaker, that we've been communicating tonight with our constituents at

#4jobs. the things i'm hearing go directly to this point. josh from troy says, throw out the tax code. trying to highlight -- people that we're hearing from, mr. speaker, are saying exactly what our frustrations are on this floor, as the president tells us to pivot back to jobs and the economy. mes says take -- will help employers to hire full-time employees which our economy really needs. sara, health care is the biggest problem. employers are afraid to hire until they know the whole deal. we've talked about that in your three r's, the repeal and the replace being the first. about this uncertainty, not just in the regulatory environment that businesses have to deal with, or with the tax code, which is the point you were all making, but also in how these are going to be implemented.

we've passed these huge bills, we don't know what's in them and they get passed and now the uncertainty associated -- i mean, how many people have you guys talked to that have had to come new person just to into compliance with what they think the health care law might be instead of hiring another individual that can then produce what that company produces? to provide a product for this country. instead they're having to compete with all of the federal employees that are put in place to implement these laws. employers are having to go out and hire somebody just to come into compliance with the laws. and now i hear from our bankers back in our state, you guys have probably heard this one, that not only is the regulator showing up, but the regulators now -- regulator's now showing up with a lawyer as well so the bank has to go get their lawyer

there because they're not going to find themselves in a position to not be duly represented at a time when there's a federal regulater in their office. this is just costing businesses more and more dollars. >> and it's not just costing businesses. mr. rothfus: you think to the mom who's sitting at that kitchen. mrs. roby: it's passed on to me as the consumer. mr. rothfus: the mom who no longer has the free checking. they're going to pate monthly bills, they're looking at that utility bill, the electric bill's coming in, remember when the president in 2008 said the electricity rates are necessarily going to skyrocket with his plan? well, there's the mom who's going through the monthly bills, you know, wondering how she's going to make ends meet and all of a sudden there's another $5 or $10 or whatever the charge is going to be for losing the free checking. that's real money. then she goes to the gas

tank and all of a sudden prices are going up at the gas tank again. another $10 there. $10 for the checking, $10 for -- that's $20 right there and it grows and it grows and it grows. mrs. roby: and then she goes to the grocery store and she sees that the cost of mill success hire because the cost of gasoline is. i'm that mom that puts gas in her car and goes to the grocery store and you can see the net effect that this has on the individual. so you're absolutely right. it's not just the businesses but the businesses then have to turn around and pass that cost off onto the consumer. we have solutions for these problems. real commonsensal solutions that we have put forth and put forth and put forth, reducing the regulatory environment, a health care solution that works, that allows for individuals to make those decisions with -- between themselves and their doctor. an all of the approach energy plan that is actually put into practice here in the house of representatives. instead of being that campaign rhetoric, we really have

demonstrated our belief in our approach to an all-of-the-above energy plan. speaking of energy -- thanks for joining us. >> glad to be with you this evening. i thought it was interesting, it was can just raised, the issue where the president said the costs would necessarily skyrocket. i actually have that quote. what he said was, when i was asked earlier about the issue of coal, under my plan of cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. skyrocket. even regardless of what i said about whether coal is good or bad, because i'm capping greenhouse gases. coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it. whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. that's will cost money. and you know what he said next? mr. griffith: exactly what you were talking about. the plants that would have to retrofit, they will pass that

money on to consumers. but it's not just the higher cost to consumers, to the moms and dads that are going out there shopping, trying to make ends meet, trying to look at their grocery bill getting bigger, their gas bill getting bigger, etc., etc., but it's also the impact on the families because no matter what they say about, oh, we can do this with jobs and we can create jobs, that's not been the case, particularly in my district, which is a natural gas and coal-producing district. i was at a remote area medical program this weekend in my katne was enator there. one of the things, one of the people that came through was talking to me, her husband, she was there with herself, she needed some help, her daughter needed some help, her husband lost his job in the mine. this is happening all across my district, all through central appalachia. they're laying off people, every month we're losing more and more

jobs. now, mind you, a lot of folks don't know that these jobs cost -- are bringing in money to the community. and that these are big-paying jobs. the estimate is somewhere between $75,000 and $95,000 a year. that's what these jobs bring into the community. so here's a lady that needs help because they've lost their job because of the policies of the administration that have killed those jobs. but as the gentleman previously stated, it's not just the jobs in the coal mining, it's not just the coal operators, it's the people that sell the cars to the people who used to work in the mines. it's the people who sell the mine safety equipment to the people who run the mines and work in the mines. it's the people who haul the coal, it's the people who work for the train companies that haul the coal. and it's the cost of making goods in the united states of america where those costs are going up and up and up compared to other parts of the world and in fact there's an article just recently that says that southeast asia, even though natural gas is available to that

asian market, is choosing coal over and over again because per b.t.u. it's better for them to use coal. and a lot of times people talk about the low cost of natural gas in tch country and i have to tell you, it's a great boone to us in many, many fields, in lots of areas. ut you have to remember, at $4 per million b.t.u.'s created, coal and natural gas are equal. anything above $4, coal is more efficient, it's cheaper to use. but guess what? this year we've been over $4. right now, today it's at $3.83. but this year we've been over $4. we're passing these costs on, we're taking our jobs, we're shipping them overseas and i know y'all have heard this before but i want, mr. speaker, everybody in the country to know -- that we send these jobs oversees, -- overseas, they're making the goods that we used to make in this country, they're getting the money we used to have in this country for our jobs and our employees and

according to a nasa study, it takes 10 days for the air from the middle of the gobi desert in central china to get to the eastern shore of my beloved virginia. the air is coming back over here. so what we need to be doing is we need to be looking for things that resolve this issue of the pollutions and so forth on a global basis and we don't need to be killing jobs in the united states of america while we look for those solutions. we need to make sure we're encouraging those jobs? the -- those jobs in the united states of america. mr. kinzinger: wouldn't it be nice to have conversations like that all the time. people believe that coal is bad. i disagree. they believe it. and i'm sure my friend from virginia would love to debate them. i remember hearing rhetoric about our parties supporting black lungs and that rhetoric that's meant to