without scientific decisionmaking, without accounting for their actions. the gentleman proposes that we simply grant the secretary the sole authority to dictate that we close off any and all of our nation's lands from hunting and fishing based simply on the secretary's mere opinion that hunting and fishing are a threat to our nation's lands because of climate change. hunting and fishing are traditions and foundations that this nation was built upon. they are not burdens to our national lands. they are one of the many purposes for our national ands. just yet, before the rule committees, one of my colleagues was commenting he had a b.b. gune at age seven a .22 rifle at age 12678 he talked about how as a young man he learned to respect guns and tradition. it's that -- yet that same member is --ed about what

children are learning today in the lack of respect for guns and the traditions of the outdoors. mr. chairman, i believe that this is one of the many benefits and reasons that we are here today to help restore the opportunity for hunting and fishing traditions to take root in our federal lands. to remind our federal land managers that the exercise of these traditions are not a burden on our land but one of the foundations of our land. finally, let me say this, regard throfse one's view on our climate, this amendment is not about climate change. it's about granting the secretary a blank check to ban hunting and fishing. nothing in the bill, nothing in the bill, changes the secretary's ability to manage our lands to ensure responsible management. the bill does require lands to be open, however, before close but when closing lands the secretary must act in a major

fashion to ensure that our hunting and fish prague decisions are protected and valued system of i urge my colleagues to reject what i consider to be an anti-hunting and fishing amendment and reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized mr. holt: may i ask the time remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has three minutes. the gentleman from washington has one and a half minutes. mr. holt: i thank the chair i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman who represents northern virginia who as a leader of the sustainable energy and -- and environment caucus. he's a co-spon or of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. connolly: i thank the chair and thank my colleague. as a co-chair of the green dogs i'm proud to co-sponsor this

amendment. the bill purports to be about expanding opportunities for sportsmen on federal lands yet fails to recognize the significant effect climate change will have on such opportunities. for example, what will climate change mean for hunters who are forced away from parks because of drought or threat of wildfire weasms witness this -- witnessed this year, wildfire season has been longer, larger, longer term than ever before because of commyclie mat change. the might roer to habits of ducks and patterns of fish to name just two species are also being negatively affected. what will climate change mean for anglers to find streams drying up and killing fish. last september, montana officials closed the blackfoot riffer. not the secretary, they did. the iconic backdrop for the book and film "a river runs through it" to protect from the stress of low level river flows. mr. chairman if we want to protect and expand outdoor

recreational opportunities, shopt we understand what climate change will mean for hunters and the affected wildlife and their habitat? i urge my colleagues to support this simple, commonsense amendment and i yield back to my friend from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i reserve and advise my friend i have no further requests for time. mr. holt: i will claim the remaining time to address a couple points that my friend, the chair, from washington, has raised. there is nothing in this amendment that gives the secretary any new authority. it simply says the secretary should consider climate change in policies for managing these lands. climate change is the problem that needs to be addressed. you can deny it all you want but climate change will do more to

restrict hunting and fishing and recreation on public lands than these imagined administrative reductions or restrictions or lawsuits or restrictions on lead shot or any of those things. there are a variety of adaptation strategies to promote resilience of fish and wildlife populations and forests and plant communities and fresh water resources and ocean resources, these are being studied by academic and scientific and yes, government and nonprofit organizations. a great deal of thought is going into this. and we want to make sure that there is nothing that restricts the secretary from using these best adaptations stratjirks the best management practices, to take into account what is real. it is not imagined. the climate is changing. it is affecting the ecology of all these public lands.

i urge support of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. hastings: i want to point out that the gentleman wanted to clarify by saying that this doesn't give authority, but the secretary should consider. what if the secretary considers and then decides to take action? that's the pint of the argument that i made. that is that that action then on climate change could cause limited or no access to our public lands. that's why i said this amendment is kind of cloaked in different clothing because it does not speak to climate change, it -- in fact, it speaks to the potential closing of our public lands. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment and yealed back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. mr. holt: mr. chairman, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pusuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed thonings amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. of it is now in order this consider amendment number 11 printed in house report 113-339. for what purpose pl kildee: mr. chairman -- mr. polis: i ask unanimous consent to act as the designee of mr. kildee and have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 in house report 113-339 offered

by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. the chair: the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. polis: thank you, mr. chairman. in 19 , president nixon signed executive order 11644 which required that the u.s. forest service create travel management plans for the operation of offroad vehicles in our national forest including snowmobiles. these travel management plans were designed to address the concerns of different users. they can be simple or detailed enough to affect noise, carbon emissions, traffic patterns, protect animal migratory patterns. n 2005, the forest service finalized its plan for motorized vehicles except snowmobiles which were exempted. each year tourists contribute millions of dollars to to the economy and snowmobiles attracts

tour is. not only do many residents enjoy it but it attracts tourists and creates jobs in our area. though snowmobiles were exempted from this rule, individual forest managers were still able to restrict snowmobile travel as appropriate on a case by case basis through individual travel management plans that met the unique needs of each area. in 2013 a federal district court n idaho in the winter wildland include they must snowmobiles this amendment states while the national forest service develop this is plan it's a sense of congress that the forest service should continue to allow snowmobiles on federal lands during this rule's development with the same restrictions in place prior to the winter wildlands alliance decision to ensure the ability to have snowmobilers to recreate

is not interfered with because of the period where we're dwourpg permanent policy. ghiven breadth of outdoor activities it makes sense that the public lands should be available for multiple uses including snowmobiling. about a quarter of americans who participate in outdoor rk ration enjoy motorized vehicles as part of the activity. like other outdoor enthusiasts, snowmobilers contribute to the economy by staying in hotels, purchasing souvenirs and enjoy logue call restaurants. as this expands it's important to issue rules to determine whether areas are open or closed to snowmobiles. this sense of congress will allow the certainty to allow the tour. industry to continue. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. polis: i reserve the balance of my -- mr. hastings: i will the gentleman yield. r. polis: i yield.

mr. hastings: i i was looking for you on the floor at the of last week to make a deal, and take seattle for 34 points. i think you would have taken that. if the gentleman will say that the better team won, and you don't have to make any other adjectives if the gentleman wailcy that, i'll accept this amendment. mr. polis: i will say on the record that the better team on that particular day won. there was some doubt whether that was the denver broncos that took the field. mr. hastings: i knew the gentleman would find something to say. dealing with the amendment, i think this amendment, again, in the spirit of add manager activity on federal lands, i think this adds to it. i'm prepared to support the amendment and i yield back to the gentleman and thank him. mr. polis: i thank the chair and i yield to the ranking member pleasure defazio. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman for yielding, i

congratulate mr. polis and congressman kildee who is detained at the white house, for offering this amendment. i appreciate that the majority has accepted it. this will be a temporary provision until such time as the final rule is adopted. there was never any -- i don't think any intent to have this sort of blanket ban on snowmobiles and this would correct that error by the forest service as they go through a deliberative process on where, when and how snowmobiles will access federal forest lands on a unit by unit basis. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman from washington for his remarks. you know when the defense of one team scores more points than the offense of the other team you know your team is not in good shape. i congratulation the -- congratulate the gentleman, 12 seconds fastest ever score in a way that was quite embarrassing for the broncos be we'll be back next year and look forward to channeling in the nfl. i appreciate the support from both the chair and ranking member for mr. kildee's and my amendment this rule will help

the u.s. forest service improve management, prevent disruption of the tourism industry, allow for the continued enjoyment of residents for snowmobiles and ensure they're used in a manner that prokes natural resources, minimizes conflict with other users and provides an protects motorized recreation. until we finalize the travel plan, snowmobilers will be able to enjoy their favorite activity and they'll continue to reap the economic benefits of hosting these winter sport enthusiast. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. does anyone seek time in opposition? seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. the gentleman from washington -- mr. hastings: i move that the

committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted, accordingly the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 3590 reports the same back to the house and has come to no decision thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 3590 and has come to no resolution thereon.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states. section 202-d of the national emergencies act provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless for the 90 days prior to the anversesry date of its declaration the president publishes in the federal reblingster and transmits to the congress a notice . in accordance with this provision, i have the enclosed notice that the national emergency declared order of february 7, 2006, with respect to the situation in or in relation to -- is to continue in effect beyond february 7, 2014. the situation in or in relation to it which has been addressed by the united nations security council in resolution 1572 of november 15, 2004, and

subsequent resolution has resulted in the massacre of large numbers of civilians, widespread human rights abuses, significant political violence and unrest and fatal attacks against international peace keeping forces. since the inauguration of the president in may of 2011, at the government -- the government has made progress in advancing democratic freedoms and economic development. while the government and its people continue to make progress toward peace and prosperity, the situation in or 'lvoire on to cote d poses a threat to the united states. for these reasons i have determined that it is necessary to -- continue the national emergency and related measures blocking certain persons. signed, barack obama, the whowls. -- the white house. the speaker pro tempore:

referred to the committee on foreign affairs. and ordered printed. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mrs. michelle lujan grim much of new mexico for today -- grisham of new mexico for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, last week north carolina lost a real leader and a good man. mr. holding: my loyal friend, sheriff garr yinters, of wayne -- garr request winters of wayne county -- gary win theyers -- winters of wayne county. he was one of the youngest men to be elected as sheriff and 2013 would have marked his 20th year of service. he was dedicated to the people

he served and respected by all. gary was a life-long member of union grove freewell baptist church where he met his wife of 33 years, teresa. family was everything to gary. he had three daughters. jessica, ashley and carrie ann and two granddaughters. gary was devoted to wayne county and dreven by his faith, his family and his commitment to the citizens who put their trust in him. while it is a dark time in wayne county, we know that the light of his life and his example will illuminate this community in the days ahead. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. golf swing -- georgia, mr. gingrey, is recognized as the designee of the majority

leader. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, thank you. here we are now, february, 2014, the second session of the 13th congress has begun. the administration still has to deal with daily headlines, speaking of the disaster of, you guessed it, the affordable care act. i have to sometimes refer to that as the unaffordable care act. today the news came from the nonpartisan c.b.o., congressional budget office, my colleagues are all familiar with that, and their report states that the administration's rosie projections are -- rosy projections are mere fairytale. if you take a dive into these numbers from the c.b.o., mr. speaker, you see last year's goals amended lower, as low participation and atrocious

rollout of the exchanges has finally caught up with those estimates. let me just give you colleagues a few highlights. c.b.o. lowered the estimate of exchange enrollees to six million. that's a million less than they estimated at this time last year. now, this isn't all that surprising, given the problems with the website, healthcare.gov, and the rest of the implementation of obamacare. but it definitely reinforces the notion that this plan is not working. c.b.o. estimates that 31 million americans will still be uninsured in 2024. you know, colleagues, when this bill was being discussed at energy and commerce, way back n 2009, 2008 even, the

democratic majority at the time said there were 45 million people who were uninsured. that number really shrunk down considerably, when you realize that there are a number of people who were eligible for medicaid and just didn't know it, could have been as many as 10 million or 11 million or 12 million. obviously a lot of people in this country illegally, uninsured. but not eligible. and people making $75,000 a year in their household who could afford health insurance but just chose, because of the constitution, their personal liberty, to pay as they went. not something i recommend. but c.b.o. estimates now that in 2024, 10 years later, after the passage and full implementation on october 1 of

this year, 2014, that there will still be 31 million americans uninsured. what have we really solved here? doesn't sound like we've really helped very much. now, this bill was sold to the american people as the solution to eliminate the uninsured. stead the bill only really adds costs in the form of very expensive mandates to everyone who already had insurance. and a lot of them now are just saying, you know, heck, i'm not -- i'll be one of these that will go bare, maybe set up my own savings account for health care, and put $100 a month or whatever in a checking account and get a physical when i need it annually or biannually, and

i'll pay my own way. and that's happening. and they pay a little fine of $95. so that's what's happening. and it's quite a legacy for the president's signature piece of legislation. i don't think it's a legacy that he anticipated and certainly not the one that he wants today. and finally the headline from "the hill" newspaper, most of us read that, don't we, colleagues? . read all these newspapers but in "the hill" today, here's what it says. the head lean. b.o., o-care, o standing for obamacare, o-care slowing growth, contributing to job losses. the c.b.o. projects that the law will reduce labor force compensation by 1% from 2017 to 2014. twice the reduction it

previously had projected. this will decrease the number f full-time-equivalent jobs by 2.3 million in 2021. and this is up from a previous estimate of 800,000. big difference, my colleagues, in 2.3 million and 800,000. this is remarkable. through a combination of higher health care costs resulting in lower compensation, and perverse incentives for folks to not work as much to preserve eir subsidies, it is truly not the american dream. the administration, mr. speaker, continues to push for more money for jobs programs. yet at the same time continue to fight for a bill that has

yet to work and will lead to rewarding people for working less? what are these jobs programs? just get rid of this -- what can i call it? this worse bill, maybe that's ever been passed in the history of this body. of this congress. the affordable care act has given us higher costs, not lower, it has performed much worse than was promised. much worse. and it will insent our citizens to work less. that's not what we want. that's really not what they want. mr. speaker, it is time for the administration to give in, to give in to reality and let us repeal this bill. it's the first

choice, to just sit back and see it collapse under its own weight. you hear that expression a lot. i think that very well could happen. but let's be -- let's take maybe a more responsible approach, mr. speaker, i would say to this, to the president, mr. president, let's take a more responsible approach and you work with the congress, with republicans and democrats, with the house and the senate, you get more engaged than you've ever been before and work with us, let's repeal it. let's repeal it and let's start over with something that truly does work, because we all agree that while we have the greatest health care on the face of this earth, why is it that people pay thousands of dollars to get on a jet plane to fly from

other countries to come to the well star health system in my district, the 11th of georgia, to get their health care, to get their surgery, to ? t their treatment for cancer you don't see people from this country going in the opposite direction, because they get that good care here. so, mr. president, we can work together. we can, the american people want us to. they don't want one side jamming the other. they do want us to work together. and i want to take some time during this special order hour that our republican leadership has afforded us, i hope some of my colleagues from the house g.o.p. doctors caucus will be joining me momentarily and i'll

yield time to them. but the opportunity for us to explain to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle what needs to be done and how we can work together and clearly get this done and get it done to in a timely fashion, if not this year -- get it done in a timely fashion, if not this year, then certainly in the 114th congress. this doctors caucus is something i put together a number of years ago and we are now up to about 22 members. it's not, and i say doctors, there are a lot of categories of doctors. but i'm talking about doctors that work specifically in the health care space. the 1/6 of the economy of this country. and these doctors can be dical doctors, they can be dentists, they can be psychologists, they can be

advanced practice nurses, indeed even hospital administrators are part of this group. because they know, they we rstand in our caucus have probably 600 years of accumulated clinical experience. that means there's a little gray around the sideburns on a few of us, but this knowledge, this expertise, our leadership on the republican side recognizes that. and our committee chairs on energy and commerce and ways and means and labor and work force, every one of those committees has any jurisdiction over health care, they understand that and they look to us, they look to us for expertise and guidance and explanation, just as we who have worked in the health care sector before we got elected to the congress, we look to educators, we look to

accountants, we look to attorneys and their previous -- in their previous lives to help us on issues that we're not so up to date on or have that level of expertise. and that's the way it should be. and that's the way it should be, in my opinion, on both sides of the aisle. meet if ctors caucus not weekly, at least every two weeks. we talk about issues, we've been talking about this affordable care act for the last three years and going through it section by section and trying to have the thorough understanding and we bring understanding to the table, but everybody can learn something hat they didn't know in 2 -- in a 2,700-page bill, but that's the due diligence that we have done over these last several years. and when we read in the media,

we hear from the democratic side of the aisle, either in this house of representatives r from majority leader harry reid and the democratic majority in the senate saying, well, or even, mr. speaker, the president of the united states, how many times have we heard him say, if you have an idea, if you have a better plan, bring it to me, bring it to me, 'm all ears, i want to listen. we have done that i value the opportunity be here today to explain some of the things that have been done and that they have really come through the house g.o.p. doctor's caucus. one of our members is my an ague from georgia,

orthopedic surgeon, dr. tom price. we served together in the georgia senate. we're medical colleagues. he an orthopedic surgeon america an obstetrician, and now -- surgeon, me an obstetrician, now we've been in congress together for 10 years and so he is a very active member of this house g.o.p. doctors' caucus and he has a bill. set the record straight, colleagues, let me tell you about dr. tom price's bill, h.r. 2300, impacting patient first. that bill is not 2,700 pages but it's a comprehensive bill. a lot of sections in that bill are individual ideas that have come from the doctors' caucus. i'm proud that he has included a number of my suggestions in regard to medical liability

reform and other things and so it's a compendium of ideas. it's a very good bill a very good alternative. it is market-driven. it does not interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, that sanctity, and it's a sanctity, and dr. price understands that and every member of the house g.o.p. doctors' caucus understands that. and this bill, believe me, has the opportunity to get traction and to pass when it's brought to this house floor, pass this chamber. now, at the same time, we just heard, mr. speaker new york recent days that the senate has drafted a bill, it doesn't have a number yet, but dr. tom coburn , the ob/gyn-family practitioner

from oklahoma, from musskegee, who i worked very closely work the doctors' caucus has worked closely with he and dr. borasso nd dr. john boozman and so the senate republican doctors and the house republican doctors' caucus have worked together and dr. coburn along with senator burr from north carolina and senator orrin hatch, one of the most senior and thoughtful and brilliant members of the senate from the state of utah, they have this bill, they call it the patient choice affordability, and responsibility and empowerment act. the acronym patient care act. patient care act from the senate. so we're right there, mr. president. with all due respect, we have

ideas. we have doctor price's bill, we have dr. coburn's bill. we have other members of the doctors' caucus and the doctors' caucus in the senate is smaller but we -- we're here to help. we want to help. we truly want to bring down the cost of health care and maintain that quality that we're so proud of. and it can be done. it can indeed be done. let me talk a little bit about the economy in regard to current law, obamacare, the patient protection and affordability act osmba macare has forced employers to cut hours and as a result part time employment has gone through the roof. it has already forced many

businessings -- businesses to choose between on the one hand hiring new workers or providing health coverage. mr. speaker they just can't do both. obama, president obama always says health costs are rising at the lowest rates ever. well that should not -- that's not because -- that's not because of his bill, that's because the economy is dragging. his bill has not helped the health care industry. the costs are lower because people are not seeking care. they don't have the money. and so yeah, sure, the overall costs of health care are going down but that's not a good thing, that's a bad thing. the obama administration delayed the job-killing employer mandate for a full year. so that doesn't go into effect,

colleagues, until january 1 of 2015, 11 months from now but it left the rest of americans on the hook, on the hook for this massive tax hike. the bill adds costs to running a business, massive tax increases, and of course as i said at the outset, higher monthly premiums. you know, one of the promises the president made among many that he failed to keep was that the cost, the average cost of a health insurance premium would e $2,500 a year lower than preobamacare. just the opposite has happened. and he never said anything, i don't think, about what the deductible would be, mr. speaker. but the deductible in some of these policies, an individual deductible, might go from $1,000

a year to $3,000 a year and a family deductible to, you know, from $3,000 a year to $8,000 a year. 200% increase. doubling of the monthly premiums. of it creates just enormous uncertainty across large corporations, small businesses, and of course particularly the one sixth of our economy which is the health care industry. think about the medical device tax and what it's doing to jobs in that industry. the medical device tax has already forced companies like michigan-based striker corporation to cut 1,000 jobs. boston scientific canceled plans to build new facilities in the united states, instead moving

these high-paying, highly technical and innovative ideas, research jobs across the pond. overseas. let's look for a moment at the effect on small businesses. i speak often and i know all of you do too, on both sides of the aisle because we go back home and we face our constituents, we have to and we should. and i speak often with these small business owners the 11th district of georgia, northwest georgia, in my four counties. i want to know how president obama's health care law has affected the day-to-day operations of their company. well or ba macare has not even been fully implemented because and l these execive orders the fiats that come down and the

waivers that are granted to certain ones but not others. so obamacare really has not been fully implemented, even though the date is past but job creators and employees in georgia and nationwide are already feeling the pain, across the board, they've expressed frustration with its new rules and moving target regulations that in-- the increase in health care costs and of course the uncertainty. the uncertainty that they hate and this law has certainly created a heck of a lot of that. obamacare has forced employers to cut hours and as a result of that, part-time employment has gone up, as i said a few minutes ago. it has already forced many usinesses to choose, again, do

i hire that 50th worker? do i hire that 50th worker? going just say, no, i'm to take two part-time workers instead of one full-time worker. or even worse, i'm going to hire that 50th worker but i'm going to drop health care coverage, mr. speakerering for all of my employees. and while i get a waiver for the first 30, for the next 20 i'm going to pay $2,000 a year per employee that will go into the exchange. one georgia businessman, who employs 47 people, told me that obamacare has forced him to hire subcontractors instead of hiring new full-time employees.

another enown -- owner, who has 49 workers, recently purchased a robot instead of hiring new welders. that robot doesn't have to feed a family or four. the robot may be very efficient but the robot doesn't have a heart. and doesn't have anxiety. on main street, uncertainty and higher costs get even worse when a company needs to create more than 50 jobs as i just mentioned, creating a barrier to job creation and the expansion of their business. obamacare forces employees to work fewer hours to stay on as part-time workers. it's estimated that obamacare will require american job creators, families, and health care providers to spend -- get

his, colleagues -- more than 127 million hours a year on compliance. the e.p.a. couldn't have been more onerous. -- onerous than this bill. and they're pretty darn onerous. one georgia businesswoman has been forced to hold numerous meetings on company time for her employees to help them understand the paperwork involved in trying to get health care. besides a loss in productivity, these new rules are costing her, she recently hired an outside health care expert, just to ensure she is running her company by the books. by the books. misty smith's small plumbing company in marietta, georgia, is

known for its quality and its compassion and the excellence of its workers an yet they're struggling to hold on even with a wonderful reputation because of this law. provide regular leaf for taxpayers by delaying these costly mandates for one year is not enough. and i will continue fighting to dismantle every single piece of this train wreck law. and i pledge to the people of georgia that that's what i'm going to do. it's an accountability pledge. it's not a term limit pledge, it's just to say, look, i'm not up here to be a potted plant. you've hired me to be your voice, to speak for you on issues like this one. there are others, but i think now as we approach the elections

of 2014, what is more important than putting people back to work to provide them assurance that they can keep their doctor, that they can keep their hospital, that they can keep the health are that they they want, not larded up with a bunch of unfunded -- funded mandates, really, that are causing premiums to go up that they don't need and don't want. it's a one size fits all and in health care, one size, colleagues, and you know this, one size doesn't fit all. i mentioned a few minutes ago about the excise tax, the 2.3% on medical devices. let me mention a couple of companies that have been in touch with my office concerning this issue.

a medical company announced in february that it will lay off almost 100 workers in their tennessee and massachusetts plants. cook medical, very familiar name, has canceled plans to open five, count them, five united states factories because the tax, this medical device tax, would cost them $20 million a year in the coming years. remember, colleagues, this medical device tax is not on their profits. his is a tax on their revenue. so it's much more onerous than if it were just a tax on their profits. boston scientific planning for a more than $100 million charge against earnings in 2013, has ow built a $35 million research facility in, not boston, but in ireland and is

building a $150 million factory in china. striker corporation based in michigan blames the tax for 1,000 layoffs. zimmer, based in indiana, is laying off 450 people. and taking a $50 million charge against earnings. medtronics, one of my classmates from georgia tech as the c.e.o. of medtronics. brilliant man. retired now. but i'll never forget him. he was brilliant at georgia tech and his whole throughout his entire career. d he was the c.e.o. of medtronics. they make heart valves and many life-saving medical devices. they expect an annual charge against earnings of $175 million. providian has cited the tax in

200 lay justifyoffs and a decision to -- layoffs and a decision to move some production to costa rica and mexico. i have nothing against those countries, great country, great people, but when we're looking , 6.7%, mployment rate if you believe that, it's probably closer to 15% when you count all the people that have just given up, been unemployed for over a year and they've just -- they're not even counted anymore. we've got -- i could go on and on and on and give you examples. i'll give you one more. a guthrie, oklahoma, at that cobell has cut its full-time employeesa hours to -- employees' hours to 28 per week or less. if you had a job and you got to work 28 hours a week, colleagues, i don't know about y'all, but i would need three of those jobs to support my family and my children and help

support my grandchildren. former employee johna davis said, and quote her, they informed everybody, the company, that nobody was considered full-time any longer. that everybody was now considered part-time and they would be cutting hours back to 28 or less due to obamacare. spiritware, an idaho-based lothes company, that specialized in licensed, college and football apparel is poised to more than double their business this year. mr. speaker, that's great news, isn't it? however, the company is on the cusp of having 50 full-time employees. she is upset that what eem -- that what seems to be her best solution, hiring independent contractors, would give her

less control and it would overwork her hours and how much involvement they can have in other parts of the company. darden restaurants, parent company of such well-known and very good restaurants likealive garden and red lobster -- like olive garden and red lobster, they tested making some workers part-time last year. the chain has decided not to make all full-time workers part time, but it has not ruled out a broader shift toward that very thing, part-time work. and then in january, 2014, target announced that they would no longer provide health care coverage for their part-time employees. i could, as i say, mr. speaker, i could -- i don't know how much time have left. how much time do we have left, mr. speaker?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 29 minutes remaining. mr. gingrey: we have some time left, but i think, i think, colleagues, that you get the picture here. we have a real problem right here in river city. and by that i mean the nation's capital, but i also mean the entire country. and we have to do something about it. we can't just keep kicking the can down the road, as we have done with medicare and social security, needed reforms, protections, strengthening to make sure that these programs are there for our children and our grandchildren. but here we have created a whole new entitlement program that really, when you look at it, it's punishing both our seniors and our young.

because it's forcing the young finally reach that 27th birthday, and they can no longer now be on their parents' health insurance plan, maybe they've been living at home postcollege and the parents have finally just said, honey, you're just going to have to move out. we need our space. we need a little privacy. and these young people have a job and they want to move out with a friend or someone that they went to school with. they want to move on with their lives. they're adults now. and they've got a job and they find that to get health insurance, it's astronomical. and yet the salary that they make, their entry-level salary is too much to make them eligible for a subsidy. so what are they going to do? they're going to pay that fine, that $95 fine, and maybe even

when it gets to $600, they're going to pay that. and they're going to go bare. and i don't want to see -- i use that as an expression of being -- not having health insurance coverage. and they may be 10-feet tall and bulletproof, they may take care of themselves. they may not do sky diving and some risky sort of behavior. but you never know when that mack truck's going to run you down and you're going to end up in themental room. so, we -- in the emergency room. so we want to make sure we get this right. so far we have gotten it totally wrong. but we can do better, we will do better, we need to do it in a bicameral, bipartisan way. i mentioned my colleague, dr. price, and his bill. i mentioned my other colleagues on the house g.o.p. doctors

caucus, as we continue to work on things. my co-chair, dr. phil roe, a fellow ob-gyn from tri-cities, tennessee, former mayor of kingsport or johnson city. we can do it and we will do it. but, mr. president, you said if you like what you have, you can keep it. you also said if anybody, member of congress, has a better idea, bring it to you. and you will consider it. well, i've mentioned two bills here tonight. we have other ideas and you have 2 1/2 years, almost three years left in your second term. you want a legacy, we're going to help you have a legacy. and a good one. but you've got to work with us. it's a two-way street. and with that i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: members reminded to direct all emarks to the chair.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it's an honor to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the house of representatives, in this great deliberative body that we are part of. and i appreciate the delivery of mr. gingrey a little bit earlier. and i wanted to take us, if i could direct your attention, mr. speaker, to the situation in the middle east. and we know that the implication in our constitution is that the president conducts a foreign policy, i teach that class if i had the time, and i don't disagree with. that but also this congress has a responsibility. we have a responsibility, for example, that are specific

within the imnumerated powers of the constitution and if anyone thinks that the house of representatives or the united states senate or the congress itself as a body doesn't have the -- doesn't have a voice on foreign policy, i'd direct them to the innumerated power to the power to declare war. certainly we have also foreign policy responsibilities here. and we appropriate funds for foreign aid and a good number of other resources that go to help out countries that are either our allies or hopefully will become our allies one day. there's a lot that we do that has to do with foreign policy. we have a foreign affairs committee, we have select committee on intelligence, we have armed service, all of those things are committees that deal with issues that have to do with our foreign relations and our foreign policy. and so, because of that, mr. speaker, a number of us in this congress have take an responsibility to step forward and be engaged in foreign policy and also to have a voice and be better informed than

simply letting the message come from the white house. i see that my friend from utah is prepared to perhaps deliver a statement and i'd be happy to yield back to the speaker for hatever purpose that might be. mr. bishop: i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for the filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. company k: report to a house resolution 472, resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 2954, to authorize florida to convey certain property that was form early part of santa rosa island national monument and that was conveyed to the county subject to restrictions on use and reconveyance, and providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 3964, to address certain water-related concerns in the sacramento-san joaquin valley and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed.

mr. bishop: thank you and i appreciate the courtesy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman from utah, not only what he's done here today but his leadership. and i want to take a point to make the message here as the topic that's coming up now, the rule that was renchts referenced by the gentleman from utah, about the san joaquin valley and the drought in california and the valley. i have traveled out there and i've been there to see about 250,000 of 600,000 acres that were manmade drought. now we have nature-made drought that's coupled with the man--made drought and intend to support the legislation that comes to the floor tomorrow and i thank the california delegation for leading on this and helping the rest of the country understand how to important the water issues are around the country. i've worked with water and water management all of my professional life and these issues come close to home when you either need water or you can't get rid of it and that's what this bill is tomorrow, it's about needing water and dreppingting it to the best resources -- directing it to the best resources. ify could revert back to the

topic -- if i could revert back to the topic at hand and that's the topic of the foreign policy and the very solid constitutional claim that congress has to be engaged in foreign policy, to help manage that foreign policy and to appropriate resources to . reign policy and to that end, a number of us in this congress have not nearly -- and not nearly enough of us, have been involved in foreign policy and free trade agreements and traveled to a good number of countries to engage with people in other parts of the world to help stitch together and knit together our relationships that are so important. so i would take, first if i could, mr. speaker, paint the big picture of what the world looks like and a little bit of history first and then the picture of how the globe looks today. i take us back to world war ii which was the most dramatic shift in power that the world has seen, at least in my understanding of history, and we saw the clash of the imperial japanese and the nazi regimes and threaten to swamp

the entire world and having fought back a world war on two tronts -- fronts, in asia and across the pacific, and in europe, here in america we see this as the time that america rose to become a superpower and we saw then immediately after world war ii, we saw the cold war begin and the soviet union formed as a product, in part at least, a product of world war ii, clashing with the united states in that cold war that asted for 45 years. it was two different idea ols. it was free enterprise capitalism and god-given liberty up against the forces of the former soviet union which were atheistic and communistic and a managed economy from top down. we saw what happened. we saw how that was resolved, mr. speaker. and it was described, i think, best, by gene kirk pat lick, the -- kirkpatrick, when she said sometime about 1984, as she

stepped down as ambassador to the united nations, she said, what's going on in the world in this cold war new york this clash, this competition between the two huge ideologies, what's going on between the soviet union and the united states is the equivalent of playing chess and monopoly on the same board. and the question is will the soviet -- will the united states of america bankrupt the soviet union economically in the monopoly part of the game before the soviet union check mates the united states of america in the chose component of the game. monopoly and chess on the same board, the russians building missiles and expanding their military capability and trying to outdo the united states to the point where we would have to capitulate while we were pushing our economy and this growing dynamic free enterprise economy plus competing against a managed economy and the communist economy of the soviet union and what happened was the monopoly game, the monopoly winners went out and the soviet union was

bankrupted and because of that, the country collapsed and imploded upon itself, about 1991, and they had to reform back around to, the former soviet union, russia. russia and some of its federation countries. safer for the world because that clash of the two huge ideologies has been diminished significantly, the threat of a nuclear war has been diminished significantly thanks to ronald reagan, margaret thatcher, pope john paul ii and some will say gorbachev. those four personalities engaged together brought about -- were the leadership that brought about the die nam take brought an end to the cold war and in the aftermath of the cold war there were those sitting around, cold warriors, to celebrate the thoached cold war, a victory for the free world, not only the united states but our allies, a victory for the free world and as they celebrated, they got

ready to raise their glasses, one of them, one of them said just a minute. don't be too soon to celebrate because think of this, the world will not long tolerate a lone superpower. there will be allegiances and alliances made that you've not imagined that will line up against the united states. and if those forces line up against the united states and they -- against the united states, and they will, we will find ourselves with competition and enemies we have not seen before in this -- in the world. and some of those will be an alliance that does include islamic nations lined up against the united states. that statement was made late it was, 991, i believe and here we are, that would be at least a decade, roughly a decade before the attack on the united states, september 11 of 2001.

that eries preyent -- veries preyent comment made, efore the glasses -- that very prescient comment made before the glasses were raised, that they would form against us. because of that, we should be aware of where we are today. those enemies formed against us are radical islamists that decided they want to kill americans because they disagree with our ideology. we should not believe somehow it's a matter of we live in one place on the globe, others live in another place and we end up at war with each other and people try to kill us. that's not the circumstances in that way. instead it is competing ideologies. supreme a different belief system. people believe that if they immediate to have enemies so they can demonize those enemies and if they can mobilize their people against a demonized enemy, after the better chance of hanging on to power. that's the circumstances in iran where they describe the united states of america as being the

great satan. and the public policy of iran to declare america to be the great say tain, they teach in it their school, they are spinning centrifuges for the purposes of developing nuclear weapons and a means to deliver it and the president has contended that his negotiations with iran have slowed down their nuclear weapon efforts and perhaps they'll be able to talk iran into stopping their nuclear effort. mr. speaker, i'd take you back to september of 2003 where i sad in on a meeting with the ambassadors to the united states from france, great britain, and the united kingdom and they sat around a group of members and the discussion was about whether we should open up negotiations with iran and their nuclear capability. and after i listened to them, the three of them, and every member that was around that table, not very many, and i was a low man on the seniority totem pole half the time, i had to wait my turn to speak, of course. then i asked those ambassadors, why are you here?

what's your objective in meeting with us to have this discussion about opening discussions, dialogue with iran. their answer with us, we want you to open up dialogue with iran so you can help us because because we think that the their -- because we think that their three countries, france, united kingdom, and germany, at the table with the united states, we have a chance to have convincing iranians not to continue any further with their nuclear endeavor. september, 2003. i listened to that response and i said, if we open up negotiations or open up dialogue with iran, what are you prepared to do, then if we take step one into these negotiations? and their answer was, we want to open up dialogue. that's our objective. as if there wasn't a step two, three, four, or five. we know that once you open up the dialogue, you have to be willing to follow through with something. so i said, if the united states steps up to negotiate with iran, and it's clear that they have an

objective to develop a nuclear weapon and a means to deliver it, but the united states steps up and opens up that dialogue, then you're suggesting we enter into formal negotiations and in those negotiations you understand that if we fail to convince iran to -- that they should stop developing a nuclear, are you prepared to go to the united nations phares lution? are you prepared to -- for to the approve sanctions against iran. if the sanctions aren't effective are you prepared to blockade aroon. if you're prepared to blockade iran and that's not effective, and they continue to develop a nuclear weapon and somebody has to tep up to the line in the sand with men and equipment and put blood on the line along with the treasure, are you prepared to step up to that line in the desert sand? and of course the ambassador were real nervous about that discussion long before i got to

the part about the line in the sand in the desert and as they expressed their will which was let's just open up dialogue, they had to also recognize that when you open up dialogue you start down the path of dialogue negotiations, united nations resolutions, sanctions, blockade, and eventually if iran is committed, there's going to be a showdown. and i said to them, you see if we start down this path, we have to be prefire department follow all the way through. and let's understand that we're prepared before we start because i will tell you that iran is committed to develop agnew clear weapon and a means to deliver it. they are committed. it isn't just a feint on their part, it isn't just a motion in that direction, they're committed. if we aren't commit t.d. go all the way to putting that line in the -- if we aren't committed to go all the way to putting that line in the sand and i said the words these ways -- these words this way, iran will play us like

a fiddle and when this is all done, they'll have their knew leer weaponry, their means to deliver it, and we'll just look like a bunch of foolish negotiators. i bring this up because now here we are, 10-plus years later irke ran is in a position where they'd like of the rest of the world think that they are slowed down and maybe giving up on their effort to develop nuclear they still take the public position that we're develop agnew clear weapon, they were just enriching uranium for the purpose of generating electricity in their oil-rich country. of course no one should have ever bought that from the beginning, but our administration seems to think if they negotiate in good faith the iranians will negotiate in good faith. i think it expresses -- it indicate soms knave tai about he -- some naivete about the minds of the administration. why do they care about us for

friends if they're teaching their children to hate us. if we're the great satan they don't have a lot to gain in public opinion in iran by talking to us. their motives are to dominate that part of the world with the nuclear capability to threat than part of the world and they have said they have targets chosen in the united states. that's an iranian public position today. around if you look at the method that they could have to deliver a nuclear weapon which might only be weeks or months away, we can have inspectors in iran examining anything we want, -- we want to examine that doesn't mean the iranians don't decide they'll throw a public relations tantrum, kick the inspectors out of iran and be only two or three months from having that nuclear weapon. they can choose now when the time is right for them. when the time is right for them politically to make that move and even if they've slowed this down, even if they're not putting more centrifuges in place, the question is, are they

still spending and what happened to the enriched uranium and even they dilute their enriched uranium below 20%, it's another chemical reaction to enrich it again, it doesn't take long. at best they slowed their operations down in order to pick up four or more billion dollars into their economy they -- that they need. and because of the suffering that their economy, because of the sanctions. we're being played again. it's just part of the fiddle, we're being played like a fiddle, been played like a fiddle for the last 10 years. and the conviction and resolve from our leaders isn't strong enough. i have said from this floor, mr. speaker, that if i were the lead guy, the lead person on negotiations with iran, and i'll just take us back to the ahmadinejad era so we can think of the personality on the other side of that, we'd do it this way. i would just simply back channel information, probably through the swiss, and the diplomatic channel, back channel into the mullahs and it would be this.

presuming that i were call the shot here in foreign policy, it would be, mr. ahmadinejad and iranian mullahs, i have decided, we here in the united states, but i have decided the date beyond which you will not be allowed to continue your nuclear endeavor, and i've take then liberty to put an x on the calendar that sets that date. now you don't know that date but i do. and beyond that date you'll not be allowed to continue your nuclear endeavor, whatever it takes to do so. and it will be dramatic and the world will know and you'll certainly be the ones to get the first announcement because that's when the kinetic action starts. that's the implication. and then i would say, but owe know -- but you know if you hustle up and decommission and tear down your nuclear development equipment and do that with our inspectors to our satisfaction or an intermediary we can trust, we'll help you with that and we'll hep you with

retors -- resources to do so and we'll help you with public opinion so you can save face as you back up from this flash of civilizations that's bound to come if we let you go down this path. again, mr. ahmadinejad, you don't know that date but i do we can fore stall the inevitable if you decommission and tear this down. but you've got to mean it. it can't be a bluff. it's got to be a real x on the calendar, got to be a real date and maybe no one else knows it, maybele on the leader of the free world knows that date but he's got to mean it. and short of that, we get played like a fiddle and here we are, stretching this thing out again, the world an ever more dangerous place in that part of the world, i can stand there and listen to the intellectuals and say, europe, for example, i mentioned foreign travel, and listen to them say, well of course a nuclear capable iran is prefer to believe a military strike to take it out. they utter that in the same

fashion that people in this country would utter, well of course it's the co2 emissions from u.s. industry that's one day going to cause the earth's temperature to go up, as if somehow that was a conventional knowledge that was accepted by everyone. mr. speaker, i reject that way of thinking. the idea that a nuclear capable iran is prefer to believe a military strike to take it out isn't a rational conclusion that one can draw. tough start with a flawed premise to get to that conclusion and say it's rational. dollar lot of rational conclusions built upon false premises, i might add, and that would be one. but a nuclear capable iran threatens all over the middle east. their immediate target would be tel aviv and tel aviv which by the way, is not highly populated with anything other than jewish people, which would be their ideal target and so it's a short missile strike from iran to tel aviv they know that they certainly know that in israel and today, what they know is,

they don't have the level of confidence that the united states is standing quite as strongly next to israel as we have in the past that message has been sent by our president and our foreign policy for some time. the idea that israel should go back to the 1967 borders, that somehow as if the 1967 borders were defensible. they were defended in 1967, they were defended in 1973 but they expanded their defensive borders because of that israel traded land for peace and it didn't work out well. the gaza strip is a place to . unch attacks on the israelis hezbollah is occupying large chunks of bay rut and lebanon and that becomes a place where there are no some tens of thousands of missiles that are lined up there aimed at israel. ever more dangerous place and somehow we think that we can talk nice to the iranians and they're going to treat us nice and somehow good reason is going to get something accomplished

with negotiations. mr. speaker, it is very rare to ever see a diplomatic error take place in negotiations. you have to have leverage and that leverage is going to come from economic, military, perhaps political. it could come mostly from other entities. if you don't have those forces in place something you can use, give up, you are not being to get, well, we like you, mr. president. you said if you unclench your fist we'll extend our hand. i didn't see iran unclench its fist. i saw our hand. some of our cards have been seen and shown to the other side. it's a very, very dangerous proposition. looking in the share area in syria where it became the issue that syria had weapons of mass destruction. hard to make the case in this congress that syria had weapons

of mass destruction. of course, none of them came out of iraq because it's conventional belief over on this side of the aisle, mr. speaker, that iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. regardless saddam gassed his own people, regardless that we did secure -- we did secure yellow caked uranium in iraq. we did take it from iraq and transport it across the atlantic, down the st. laurent despite o canada and that none of that could have gotten across the border like gas could have crossed the border into syria even though used agree that assad gas against its own people, we'd like to put an end to that. once the president showed his hand on that and the british lost the vote on the floor, i believe the house of commons, the president said i want to strike syria and want you to

ive an authority to do that. and it was clear neither the house nor the senate had an appetite to go into military action in syria. so we fell back on putin and the russians to be the negotiators with the weapons of mass destruction in syria and we saw the promise that the gas -- the gas was going to be accumulated, picked up and transported out of syria at the end of the year. that was the end of last year, not this year, mr. speaker. so now it's going to take perhaps another six months and another and another and another. a static position in the world where syria has diagreesed down to the point where it's hard to find a friend in syria. the president said here in this very chamber in his state of the union address last week when he said we're going to oppose the regime and we're going to support our friends in syria. it's hard to find friends in syria. this conflict might have gotten to the point, this is' neither

side is a side that's either going to support us or one we should support. my message is in syria it has deinvolved downward into a very -- devolved downward into a very sticky situation with a lot of blood and death in syria. it threatens to spill over. of course, we have the nuclear threat that has slowed down but not necessarily suspended in iran. and the rest of our foreign relations around that part of the world where 2 1/2 years or more into the arab spring and in almost every one of those changes, some regime changes, some civil wars, some that reached a static impasse, the result of that hasn't been favorable to u.s. interests. and you can go country after country. the conflicts around. so myself and several members took a trip over into that part of the world right before christmas to assess the situation. and we need to do that because assessing the situation from here turns out there's a lot of

information that's not very reliable that comes out of the white house and the state department with regard to that part of the world. so we traveled into egypt and into lebanon and into libya and into israel, among other places, and we met with their top leaders. in most all of those countries and along down the line. of course we met with their state department and got an in-country briefing. lebanon is a mess and i think it's intractable and i don't know how you resolve it. and in libya, the civil war is -- didn't resolve it. the radical militant islamists control benghazi. it's not safe enough to go there for their government, let alone for representatives of our government. so libya is at an impasse. they'd like to be able to put together a functioning government in libya. i'm impressed with the people that are in leadership there. if they can't control benghazi, benghazi militants can come in and threaten, tripoli, for

example, and have. then, egypt, though, mr. speaker, has turned i think in a very positive direction in that they rose out and threw morsi out. morsi, the face and voice of the muslim brotherhood in the country and origin of the muslim brotherhood was rejected and 30 million egyptians went to the streets last summer to demand that morsi and the muslim brotherhood be taken down in government. it was a popular uprising. with the pleadings of the popular uprising, then you saw the egyptian military take charge. we have met with them, myself different nd two trips, they wrote a constitution, which commits resources to rebuilding our burned churches in a place like egypt. they ratified a constitution in that election in the 14th, 15th of january.

now you have elections set up for a parliament and behind that a presidential election. i expect we will see legitimate civilian government in egypt sometime in less than half a year. at that point the voice of the egyptian people to be heard through the government, a relatively new experience for the egyptians. there's a lot that's been turning in the world, mr. speaker, and i mentioned the threat to israel that we need to stand or closely with them shoulder to shoulder and make a stronger commitment to support them. they're going to have to face up to and they're going to have to decide if they have to take a step to a threat which is a nuclear-capable iran, we need to decide who we're going to be friends with. it's not the muslim brother heed in egypt, even -- brotherhood in egypt. the american people don't support the muslim brotherhood, and they don't support the militant wings and arms that are components of the muslim

brotherhood and the affiliates that might say they're not but operate in concert, especially in places like syria. we need to understand that this world is lined up to some degree against us. we've had friends in that part of the world that go deep and long and egypt is one of those in 1954 that president eisenhower said we will stand up with the egyptian people. we have had them with allies and we worked military operations mountain sinai for a long time. -- operations in the sinai for a long time. we need to restore the relationship. the soon to be legitimized government of egypt. the united arab of emirates, we need to stand with them and them with us. petroleum production and diplomacy and the growth of their own economies, we want to stand with them. we've had a good strong part in

the middle east and it's been fractured time after time by radical islamists and muslim brotherhood coming into those countries throughout this long, long period of the arab spring, summer and fall times 2.5. mr. speaker, this nation is looked to by the rest of the world to lead, and that means we need to have a strong state department, a strong foreign policy, a clear, coherent moral message. it's got to be that we stand with our friends and we should understand that just because there is an election in a country, that doesn't mean that democracy is going to be manifested or it's going to be the solution. mr. speaker, we need a stronger foreign policy. we need more members of this congress taking an interest and we need a president that gets it right. with that i'd yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 2642, an act to provide for the reform and

continuation of agricultural and other programs of the department of agriculture through fiscal year 2018 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour.

management, the public lands in those states, mostly in the west, it would ensure that those land managers would take

into account hunting and fishing and target shooting opportunities as they put together the land management plan. >> the net effect of this bill is it would expand hunting and fishing on those lands? >> that's the intent. there's some debate going on in the house right now whether or not hunting and fishing opportunities are really being stifled on public lands. his legislation really is to provide some legal teeth to those agencies so they can defend those lands to hunting and fishing if ever taken to court. so there's some language in that bill that has garnered some opposition to back country hunters, for example. it involves protections for wilderness lands. by and large, that title in the bill is supported by most hunting and fishing organizations.

>> early on in the debate you tweeted will lead ammunition hamper the sportsmen package this congress, what is proposed in this bill about lead ammunition? that title has hampered passage of similar sportsmen packages in the senate. it basically says that the toxic substances control act does not apply to ammunition or fishing tackle. that's been the impression of the u.s. e.p.a. for years now. some groups have significant concerns with the impacts of ead ammunition on birds, particularly of the endangered californian condor and humans who consume wild game consumed by lead ammunition. sportsmen groups don't believe

there's a significant environmental or health concern here. the bill -- the title would basically clarify that e.p.a. does not have the authority to regulate lead ammunition. the issue, though, in the senate some leading democrats have taken a strong stance against that title. when senator tester in late 2012 tried to push a bill in the sportsmen package that had similar language in it, senator barbara boxer and senator ben cardin raised vocal opposition to that. it's one of the elements that probably hampered its ultimate passage. >> on wild game there's a provision in this bill, i understand, that deals with polar bear trophies from canada, what would it do? >> basically -- and i'm mott familiar with the specifics of that title, but it essentially would give the u.s. wildlife

authority hunters who kill polar bears outside the country legally, legally harvested polar bears would be allowed to import them in the united states. there are certain legal restrictions based on their endangered status under the endangered species act. this is a title that's not opposed by many people. there's some -- some wildlife advocacy groups have raised concerns with it. and there's some controversy, no doubt. >> in general, how does the white house view this sportsmen bill coming up? >> well, they issued a statement of policy last night opposing the bill. they do support some of the titles. basically they did say they don't oppose -- they don't have any issue with the title involving the clarification of e.p.a.'s authority with respect to lead ammunition and fishing tackle. they did say they had concerns

with, again, title 8, the title by congressman benishek. they share the concerns of some conservation groups that there is some troubling language involving environmental reviews under the national environmental policy act as well as protections. but there was no veto threat. the white house is not ongoing with this legislation but they're not going to veto it. >> phil taylor covers the -- environment and energy publishing and you can ollow him on twitter @philipataylor. >> thank you for having me. >> in the senate, they passed the farm bill. the house passed the measure last week. it now heads to the president

for his signature. also today on capitol hill, the house intelligence committee held a hearing with the heads of the top intelligence and law enforcement agencies. the head of the defense intelligence agency testified and had this to say about the leaks from former n.s.a. contractor edward snowden. >> i have a lot more questions and a lot of members. i do want to get, general flynn, to the defense intelligence agency report that was issued recently and made available to the committee which i think is the first agency to complete its review of the stolen information by the n.s.a. contractor. in your professional opinion, do you believe these leaks will cost american lives on the battlefield, either now or in the future? >> i do. >> did the compromise make it harder to counter the threat from i.e.d.'s used against our forces in afghanistan? >> i believe that we will face

problems with the i.e.d. threats because of these leaks, whether it's in afghanistan or on some future battlefield, yes. >> so it has a fairly immediate threat level to our soldiers, marines, and other military forces in the field in a combat zone today, in your estimation? >> chairman, in my judgment, it does. >> has the safety of u.s. government personnel throughout the world been put at risk by these leaks? in other words, have you had to alter any assignments as a result of this compromised material? >> let me just say really for the purposes of our task force udy, we assume that snowden, everything that he touched we assume that he took, stole, and so we assume the worse case in how we are reviewing all of the defense department's actions,

events, exercises around the world. so to sort of cut to the chase to your question, i believe that we will have to make adjustments in the future based on those assumptions that we're making. >> and what particular military services have been impacted by this stolen material? >> all of our services. >> army? >> army, navy, air force and marine corps. >> and so there will be changes necessary to mitigate the theft of this material in order to maintain security of operations and the safety of the united states military personnel, is that correct? >> i believe there will have to be, yes. >> did these leaks give our adversaries insights in how -- about how we track them and what their military vulnerabilities are and what -- how they might look at what might be some vulnerabilities from the united states military? >> yes, they do. what i don't want to do, chairman, is i don't want to get too far in front of where this -- where the investigation

going "encore booknotes" this issue -- >> i was talking about the information that was stolen. if our adversaries are looking at them, as many in the intelligence community believe they are -- >> absolutely. >> that gives the enemy -- adversary is probably a better word today -- it gives them operational and strategic advantage when it comes to military operations around the world. >> yes, they could. >> the new c-span.org website makes it easy for you to find and watch all of c-span's extensive coverage of official washington. look for it on our homepage in a space called federal focus. each day you'll find comprehensive coverage of house and senate debates, congressional committee hearings, events with the president and members of his cabinet, press briefings from the white house, capitol hill, the state department and the pentagon.

plus, selected supreme court oral arguments and appearances by the justices. watch live or on your own schedule. federal focus on c-span.org. making it easy to keep tabs on what's happening in congress, the white house and the courts. >> treasury secretary jack lew yesterday reiterated his call for congress to pass a debt ceiling increase with no strings attached. mr. lew's comments at the bipartisan policy center for about 0 minutes. >> well, good morning, everybody. i'm jason, president of the bipartisan policy center. i want to thank you for coming out on this dreary morning. from what i expect, maybe a -- for what i expect maybe a sober conversation. let me insert their own super bowl metaphor now. so this morning it is my great honor and privilege to introduce the country's 76th treasury secretary, mr. jack

lew. secretary lew is a distinguished public servant. he's known as an honest broker and a tough negotiator, a long career in washington from working with tip o'neill to president clinton, two tours at the office of management and budget. most recently a relaxing year as the president's chief of staff. the secretary has many unique traits. but most disorienting, especially in washington these days, is that he's liked and respected by just about everybody, which brings us to today and the discussion of the debt ceiling. for the bipartisan policy center, i must admit that congressional irresponsibility has been a cottage industry. as we have received quite substantial and i would say deserved credit for putting out essentially the same report six or seven times in the last three or four years. but for just about everybody else in the country, this has become a pretty ridiculous and repetitive wound that we have visited upon our economy. so to help us understand where

we are today, the shoals and eddies of the great discussion, it's a great pleasure, mr. secretary, for you to say some words. [applause] >> thank you, jason, for that very kind introduction and thank you for the center for having me here today. we have many distinguished ests but i'd like to say senator domenici, senator snowe, bill, all people i've worked with. congressman and secretary. i'm sure i'm missing other people and i apologize for that. the bipartisan policy center has been at the forefront of shaping public policy since it was started seven years ago. at a time when our nation critically needs a place for bipartisan discussion of complex issues, the b.p.c. has become that place on a broad range of important topics.

work ct example of that is the role that they have done in protecting the pull faith and credit of the united states. as we meet here this morning, i want to emphasize, as the president did in his state of the union last week, this can and should be a breakthrough year for our economy. as the g.d.p. report for the fourth quarter of last year underscores, our economy ended 2013 strong and is poised for growth in 2014. the table is now set for us to build on the economic progress we've made over the last five years and it's incumbent on washington to be part of the solution and to avoid the bringsmanship in recent years that's done so much to diminish economic momentum. it was not that long ago that the cross-currents of the worst recession since the great depression created mass economic havoc and pain. but with a swift policy response that began in 2008 and continued into this administration and the hard work, determination and

resilience of american businesses and workers, we're coming back. the private sector has created more than eight million jobs. our economy has been steadily expanding. the housing market is rebounding. manufacturing is on the upswing. the auto industry is surging. we're on a path toward becoming energy independent, and we've seen our deficits by more -- cut by more than half over the past five years. still, we're not where we want to be yet. and not where we need to be. we must continue to build on the progress we've made by doing all we can to help the economy grow faster, help businesses create more jobs and help more americans acquire a basic level of economic opportunity and security. and that's why the bipartisan action in the house and senate to pass a budget at the end of last year and an appropriations bill last month is so noteworthy. democrats and republicans found common ground, made compromises and worked together to reach an agreement that keeps our government running for the

remainder of this fiscal year. and it makes real policy instead of letting our government run on autopilot. moreover, the budget has a blueprint to set policymaking and the specter of another shutdown is behind us. with economic head winds generated last year by the across-the-board cuts, we now see that cut down substantially as sequestration has been reduced. importantly, policy decisions in the om bus appropriations bill also provided an opportunity to move forward with smart investments and pro-growth initiatives like early childhood education and expanding the number of manufacturing centers. that translates into real opportunity for children to enroll in head start and students at community colleges to develop the skills they need to find jobs by learning cutting edge technology. while this was a step in the right direction, lawmakers still have another responsibility that they must meet. even though the house and senate approved a budget and passed a bill to keep the government running, they did

not yet provide for the borrowing commitments. last year they passed a temporary suspension of the debt limit that lasts through february 7, end of this week. absent of that, treasury will be forced to use extraordinary measures to continue to finance the government. let me repeat. in just a matter of days, the temporary suspension of the debt limit will end and the treasury department will have to start using extraordinary measures so the government can continue to meet its obligations. at different times of the year, these extraordinary measures provide more or less of a cushion, depending on variables that we cannot control. for example, at some points in the year there are large trust fund investments that can be deferred which provide larger amount of borrowing capacity. at the same time, net spending, which varies from month to month, provide how long the head room will last. now, unlike other recent periods when we had to use

extraordinary measures to keep the government running, now we will have a brief span of time before we run out of borrowing authority. in february, the same large trust fund investments that were deferred last year are not available. at the beginning of tax filing eason, tax refunds deplete borrowing quickly. we're likely to exhaust these measures by the end of the year. the b.p.c. report last month came to the same conclusion. even though these are estimates, it's clear that extraordinary measures will not last very long. after we exhaust this borrowing capacity, we will be left with only the cash we have on hand and any incoming revenues to meet our country's commitments. notably, we expect our outlays over the coming weeks to exceed our net inflows, largely due to the payment of tax refunds. so we'll drawdown our cash balance faster than at other times of the year. without borrowing authority, at

some point very soon it would not be possible to meet all of the obligations of the federal government. given these realities, it's imperative that congress move right away to increase our borrowing authority. house speaker boehner said, not only should the united states not default on its debt, i quote, we shupet even get close to it. the -- shouldn't even get close to it. he fact is delaying action will rattle financial markets and hurt taxpayers. just think about it. around this time last year, we had a standoff and we saw consumer and business confidence drop and investors and market participants questioned whether it was too risky to hold certain types of u.s. government debt. such a question should be unthinkable. so the bottom line is, time is short. congress needs to act to extend the borrowing authority for our nation and it needs to act now. it's important to remember that

increasing the debt limit is congress' responsibility and congress' alone. that's because only congress has the power to extend the nation's borrowing authority. no congress in history has ever failed to meet this responsibility. still, some in congress have suggested that extending the nation's borrowing authority should be tied to spending cuts. but as one republican member of congress put it, and i quote, the time to fight for spending cuts is when you're talking about spending, not at debt ceiling time, closed quote. the point is, as i've noted before, raising the debt limit has nothing to do with new spending. it's about fulfilling spending obligations that congress has already made and paying bills that have already been incurred. refusing to raise the debt ceiling will not make these bills suddenly vanish. and the president has made it clear time and again that neither he nor any other president will have to pay a ransom so the united states can pay its bills. presidents from both political parties have stood firm on the

protecting the full faith and credit of the united states. we should never put this precious asset in jeopardy. i continue to urge congress to increase our borrowing authority in a timely manner and provide regular updates as new information about our ability to finance the government has become available. the truth is the longer we wait the greater the risks become. whether it's the economic recovery, the financial markets or the dependability of social security payments and military salaries, these are not things to put at risk. in the aftermath of last year's shutdown, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle demonstrated that they understood what an impediment washington has become to economic growth. there's no reason to repeat the mistakes of the recent past. progress in washington around the budget and the farm bill can mark the beginning of productive bipartisan action. congress should work quickly to resolve the debt limit without delays or political posturing which could snowball into a

manufactured crisis which the american people clearly so want us to avoid. thank you very much and i look forward to taking a few of your questions. [applause] >> all right. we have time for a few questions. and please do introduce yourself when you ask one. yes, senator conrad. >> welcome, mr. secretary. good to have you here. we're so glad you are in that position. the question that comes to mind is, what are the single most important thing congress could do right now to strengthen the economy and improve job creation? >> you know, i think the first thing is just to make sure we don't have a repeat of the kind of self-inflicted wounds we saw last year. we saw over the last two or three years, the economy -- picking up momentum and things got jammed up in washington and we saw confidence go down.

we saw the markets become volatile. so the very, very first thing i think congress could do is just do its business. that's what happened with the budget. that's what happened just -- it's happening this week with the farm bill. i believe that the debt limit is the last piece there that has to happen in order for people to breathe a little bit of a sigh of relief that we're not going to see the kinds of brinksmanship that cause anxiety, frankly not just here in the united states but around the world. you know, moving beyond that, i think there are quite a number of things where there is a bipartisan consensus where congress could move forward and it really would help the economy. i believe immigration reform has a bipartisan consensus and i believe it would very much help our economy. i believe that infrastructure investment is something we badly need for a future that's going to be strong and vibrant and there's a bipartisan consensus to do that and i think we can make progress on that. i think skills training is another area. when you go out and talk to

employers in this country -- i did it friday in virginia -- the question you get asked -- two questions. one, can we rely on the infrastructure? can we rely on the fact there will be generation after generation of workers with the skills we need? i think there's quite a lot to be done that can move the economy forward. i think the fourth item is tax reform. i think there's -- business tax reform, convergence of thinking. so i'm going to continue to be optimistic that there are things that not only congress can do but where there is a bipartisan consensus to move things along. >> governor keating. >> mr. secretary, demographics are a destiny and those of us who served on the rivlin-domenici panel here at the b.p.c., both sides of the issue, stunned at what's coming.

the cliff, once we get over there, is a chasm in terms of the next 10, 15, 20 years in terms of debt and deficit in part caused by a very good thing. we're living a lot longer. how do we address that? what are your thoughts about that very serious challenge in the debt-deficit category? >> when you look at demographics in the united states, our demographics are much more positive than other parts of the world. we have more young workers than other countries do. we have the ability to grow and as i mentioned a moment ago with immigration reform, we have a history of growing our population by being a magnet for people who want a better life and to build our economy. i think when you look at these long-term trends, as the president said many times, there's a need for bipartisan discussions about how we can deal with some of these tough issues in a balanced, fairway. in the past that's how we made progress. whether it was 1983 social

security reform or 1986 tax reform. it's going to take a bipartisan consensus which frankly has been challenging to reach. now when you look at the next 10 years, we're seeing a good path. we're seeing the deficit cut in half. cutting it in half is a significant measure. dealing with the long term is dealing with the short term and i think we're on a path to dealing with the next 10 years. you know, i believe when the time comes for a bipartisan conversation, we can keep faith to social security and keep the program as we know it and keep medicare so that it's a dependable entitlement for senior citizens and we can make the kinds of policy that over the long term will make a difference. we've had a challenge finding the space where you can have a balanced approach and balance means you look at both sides of the equation. as we said in our fiscal policy for a number of years, you have to balance revenues and

spending and that's where the difficulty has come in. so i'm not sure this is the year for the long-term fiscal challenge to be dealt with. i actually believe we've made so much progress in the short and medium term, we have a little time to deal with the longer term. with a we need to do is develop a track record to develop some trust across the aisle and if wuck get some of the things i mentioned done this year and over the next 18 months that would be an excellent foundation for tackling some of the harder problems as we go forward. >> mr. secretary, we only have time for i think one more question. >> yes, sure. >> joe. >> mr. secretary, every time we've gone around this bush the last few years, you always heard the statement, the united states should not default on its debt but, and then the sentence continues. and usually the condition is there are things that we ought to do and that the debt limit

should be a motivator. is it suitable for one side in that kind of discussion to hold open just in case the prospect of tanking the local economy and taking u.s. households down with it for purposes of negotiation? >> you know, joe, i think what we saw in 2011 was different from anything we've seen in the previous 30 years you and i worked on these kinds of budget issues. quote, i don't get my way, we'll default, that is not an acceptable way to deal with the debt limit. i think the president had to take a firm position that could not be the way we deal with it. we can't have either every year or six months this kind of high-stakes threat that if you don't capitulate on a matter of broad policy then we're going to default. because one side is being responsible and says we can't default and part of another side says we're not. i think the president's

position on this has been a very principled one. he has many times said it, if you flip the parties around and have a democratic congress and a republican president, he would just as strongly believe it's an obligation to pay our bills. the truth is we're one of the very few countries in the world that separates the spending decisions from the decision to borrow and pay for it. we saw the senate move forward with an innovation, the mcconnell rule, which made it a little bit easier for congress to deal with it a couple of times but putting it on the president to raise the debt limit and congress with an opportunity to block it. i think to give both sides a chance to have their views very much reflected. what we cannot do is we cannot for a moment accept the notion that for the first time since 1789 the united states would not pay its bills and it's not acceptable from leadership on either side which i'm confident will be addressed and hopefully it will be addressed in a way

that doesn't cause the high wire brinksmanship that does so uch damage to our economy. >> i'm lucky today, i have a very big job, very short time and that's -- you know, i had the luxury of introducing the secretary to the united states senate republicans when they were getting ready to approve him for this job and that was a real pleasure then. and today it's again -- thank you from me to you for all you do and what you have done since you have become in this last and very high job you had. so my job is to say thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> after secretary lew's remarks, the bipartisan policy center hosted a panel

discussion on the debt ceiling. we'll hear from former officials with the bush administration, a former head of the congressional budget office and former senate budget committee chairman, kent conrad. >> it is a very great panel so we want to jump in. you have the full bios of everybody here in your pact. ll the bios are on the website, bpc.org. here is the sown yor treasury representative for the australian government. the australian embassy in washington. rudy, former director of the congressional budget office. now at the urban institute. larry lindsey, former director of the national economic council at the white house and former federal reserve governor, now running the lindsey group. paul sheered, chief global economist at standard & poor's. and former assistant director of treasury.

larry, i actually want to start off with you with a simple question. have the american people gained anything from having a debt ceiling? >> well, thank you. it's a pleasure to be here today, and i guess i got the first question because i am the aposs thought on the panel. i think the thing you got to do is look at history. as a way of introduction, i thought i'd correct slightly something the secretary said about the shoe being on the other foot, right, since the president was senator he voted against the debt ceiling and said, washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. america has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. america deserves better. , you know, when one is in opposition, that's a natural position to take. i think it's important to put that into context as we consider why we've set it up

that way. you know, we have a basic set english civil war enshrined in the constitution that basically come down to no congress being able to buy into future congress. that's important that each congress have to take an affirmative step, an affirmative step to do any kind of fiscal action. now, the founding fathers put it in article 1, section 8, they picked out the most extreme case they could have which is the country was at war. and what did they say? well, the congress could only appropriate money to fund those armies for a maximum of two years. they had to come back even in that extreme situation where the country was at war and affirmatively vote for more money. now, i can understand that in the reading of history -- i wouldn't bore anyone with the reading of history, but i think

we all understand why that was important and that's where the debt ceiling comes from. that's the way it was used to be. in 1974, for very good reasons, we did a budget reform and we created a category of spending. that was not subject to congressional vote. we could now call it entitles or nondiscretionary spending -- entitlements or nondiscretionary spending. you can simply say, you're funding the actions of the past congress but remember, the constitution, supreme court rulings, and precedent is funding what a past congress did isn't the story. there's still supposed to be an affirmative vote of the current congress to continue the spending. well, ok. fine. we understand, you know, this is easy and we don't want to have to take tough votes so this is why we do it.

but look at how far that's been expanded. we've gone from automatic social security increases, which, all right. it's set by rule by congress. we now have the affordable care act, it's entirely an entitlement. well, all right. let's look at the insurance subsidies. well, the insurance subsidies, well, we don't know how much it will cost so we'll set the rule of how much the individual has to pay and then we have an unlimited, not funding everything on top of it as an entitlement. . i can see tangentially how that might reach out, but we have another entitlement in the bill just shows how far we pushed the concept. no need for congressional appropriation. it is the risk corridor. here we have congress not even saying how the risk is really going to be defined, entirely made up by the president, entirely up to the discrio