boren of that, david the university of oklahoma discusses education and budget cuts. we will take your comments on facebook and twitter. ♪ >> on capitol hill this morning, a house oversight and government a hearing onold the irs targeting specific groups. look for our coverage on c-span.org. join the conversation on twitter with the #cspanchat. decision to stop selling cigarettes at their stores is making headlines this morning. appeals to a growing rank

of customers under the affordable care act. do you think? democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. independents, (202) 585-3882. we have a fourth line for smokers. (202) 585-3883. @cspanwj.weet, this tweet when they made the announcement that they will no longer sell tobacco products at their stores. a statement on their website, cbs quits for good. cvs quits for good.

habit and will not sell tobacco products. sold,ttes bought and drugstores have a very small share in retail volume of cigarette sales. it only makes up about four percent. 15%.nience stores about gas stations have the largest share of tobacco sales. 48%. the front page of "the hartford cvs to stop selling tobacco. decline in smoking, 42% of the in 1965.n were smokers in 1997.ercent -- 25%

it is 18% in 2012. a declining amount of smokers in this country. this is a front-page story in "the wall street journal." they have the number, $2 billion, the amount cvs expects to lose when they stop selling the back of products. -- tobacco products. out of $133 billion in projected revenue. by opposing view is written dan johnson. its say that cvs insult own customers. society has acted as if 1/5 of its people don't exist because they choose to smoke.

we believe smoking is a choice of using a legal product. may not be taking into account the other sales that are lost when smokers do not stop in to their shores. this does not sound like a company that shares like -- cares about its shareholders. betterclaim to remote health among its customers, but sell junkue to food and alcohol, which are also claimed to be unhealthy. of cvs customers smoke, why inconvenience those who by their cigarettes and other tobacco products there? likely anis opportunity for cvs to get free

genuinelythan any serious public-health move. good.its for twitterbol is their page. their bio at the top shows cvs quits with this symbol. cvs still sells alcohol. i would like to know, the alcohol-related deaths there are. cvs is a drugstore. the drugs is a drug. smoking is a drug. still selllls, best drugg -- that is still a

to me. are fromdeaths there alcohol, and you are still selling alcohol. host: ron, good morning. theer: the whole thing that gentleman did not mention is the fact that those products that he is comparing to cigarettes that they do sell, cigarettes are the only one that if used the way they are directed that will kill. it puts people in grades. the other products do not. i was a heavy smoker for over 30 years. i was able to quit. i was over a three pack a day smoker. host: how did you quit? i was able to quit and startednt ahead

smoking marijuana instead. the choices were really evident. one was going to put me in a grave and the other was benefiting my whole being, as far as i was concerned. quitting smoking, for the first you go through fatigue. it is terrible. every time i had a craving, i would smoke a joint. i finally got over it. host: do you think this move is going to make anybody quit smoking? think it will. the more people see tobacco, it is a terrible, disgusting habit. it is more than just a habit. it is an addiction. havee stolen cigarettes, i

been so desperate that i reroll cigarettes into new cigarettes. that's how powerful the addiction of tobacco is. it is as bad as heroin. why it is legal, i have no idea. the business day section of the new york times, cvs valves to quit selling tobacco products. a do not sell electronic cigarettes. it said it was waiting for guidance on the devices from the fda, which has expressed interest in regulating e-ciga rettes. tom says this on twitter -- big mistake. shares beginning to fall.

i don't understand banning e cigs. that's like banning water vapor. caller: good morning. decision.cvs' this move will stop any one individual from smoking, that is debatable. tobacco is a terrible drug. nicotine is a drug. it is an addictive drug. the use of tobacco kills people. we need to face up to that honestly as a society. with some courage and responsibility, we can continue to reduce smoking. one thing we don't hear much about is the amount of smoking that goes on in the third world. i spent the last 10 years working military projects in iraq and afghanistan and saudi

arabia, islam does not permit the use of tobacco. you do not hear much about the smoking that goes on in china. the cigarette factories in china run around the clock, three shifts. be who estimates there will a million chinese a year dying of tobacco use. you saw that on their website or something? caller: i have been following tobacco for many years. the history of tobacco in this country is fascinating. how it cap the jamestown colony here in virginia and how it brought wealth to john r olfe.

even the architecture on capitol hill, if you visit the capital, they have tobacco leaves incorporated into the architecture of the capital. caller: absolutely. tobacco has affected this tontry and what i would love see and what would make a difference, if we could go after youth smoking. like 90% of all smokers start before they turn 21. the orange county register has a piece this morning that has numbers in it. governments around the globe have attempted to thwart cigarette purchases with high taxation. anders have been poorer

less educated and those demographic slices have witnessed the largest drop-off in u.s. cigarette use, perhaps due to budgetary pressures. result, growers now primarily sell to the hard-core smoker. they are referring to cvs' decision to not sell cigarettes. the cdc has this chart on their website.

200 90 3 billion cigarettes were purchased in the united states in 2011, with three companies selling nearly 85% of them. phillip morris, reynolds american, and lorillard are the company names. these three companies making up 85% of sales in the united states in 2011. jacksonville, florida, independent, and a smoker. what do you think? cvs loses all this money, could they be possibly looking for a bailout? host: why do you say that? caller: why would they do that? why are we doing this? i am not understanding something here. ism seeing that everybody not able to work no more and i am out in the community every day talking to people and they

are not quitting their jobs. they are being required to stop working. host: look at this story. quits tobacco to become medical giant. this is the analysis putting out -- being put out there. the move will cost the company $2 billion a year in lost sales, but they are gambling that abandoning smokers will help them strike more profitable deals with hospitals and health insurers. analysts called it a watershed decision that could pressure other major pharmacies to follow suit. with health care on track to make up a fit that the u.s. cvs, rite 2020 two, aid, walgreens, and even walmart will have to make a decision about what they do. there is a business decision

here that cbs wants to be -- cvs wants to be part of how the u.s. health system is delivered in this country. going to have to pay them back for the money they lose, like we have had to do in the past? maybe not with the exact same reasoning, but isn't that what happened before? smoker, are you going to -- i don't care if i do or do not. i stopped shopping at cvs before now. it has nothing to do with cigarettes. i am curious to see what happens in the next couple of years with cvs. you mentioned the loss of

$2 billion in sales. "the washington post" says 120 $5 billion is what the pharmacy chain generates in revenue annually. philadelphia, independent caller, smoker. a storewhen you go into that sells medication and tobacco, it is a contradictory presentation. i can understand why they would eliminate selling tobacco. -- a is another aspect customer service aspect. cvs is moving towards self-service checkouts. cigarettes, you cannot grab cigarettes off the shelf. this makes it go faster. buysee smokers, i don't cigarettes. i smoke cigars sometimes. when you see people at the

counter, the clerks don't know the customer or the cigarette brands, it can be time-consuming to pick them out. it is a way to speed up customer service as well. karen, florida, democratic caller, also a smoker. caller: if you're going to ban the sale of cigarettes, they need to ban the sale of alcohol as well. one is just as bad as the other. more deaths are caused from alcohol than from cigarettes. host: where have you seen that? morning sayrs this deaths from tobacco related illnesses are the number one killer of preventable deaths. so his death from obesity, but cvs sells all your snacks. road, you cane

going to cvs and get beer and alcohol, wine? it doesn't make sense to me. host: are you going to stop shopping at cvs? caller: absolutely. republic" arizona this morning. .ew snag the debate should wait until after the 2014 races. the report we talked about yesterday. lawmakers sparred on capitol hill over the health effects -- effect on the workforce. parties sayingth the findings bolster their view of how the law would play out. doug elmendorf was up on capitol hill testifying.

here's a little bit of what he had to say. [video clip] >> by providing health insurance to people with low income and then withdrawing those subsidies, it will create disincentive for people to work, relative to what would be the case in the absence of that act. lowerbsidies make those income people better off, this is an implicit tax. they do have less of an incentive to work. the better off in the context of health care, but better off in inducing a person not to work was on the low income scale, not to get on the ladder of life to begin ofking, getting the dignity work, more opportunities, rise in the income, join the missing

-- joining the middle class, that is why i'm troubled by this. elmendorf testifying about the cbo report we covered. on capitol hill on the senate side, there is a test vote on extending long-term unemployment benefits. expired in december for 1.4 million americans. this would make it retroactive. it would go back to that point and go through the end of march. that is expected to come up. it is a bill that was put together by jack reed. that debate on the hill today. -- for thepected democrats to come to the floor

and try to use all palm and parliamentarian tactics to bring a bill forward on iran sanctions. republicans are planning to use reidrick they can to press to put that bill on the floor. , a very avid iran eter, said his government will extend medical insurance to all iranians. also, the leader tweeted out the day before yesterday, after his speech was blocked by iranian television -- here is the headline.

tensions between iran's hardliners and the centrist government of hassan rouhani erupted publicly yesterday when broadcaster blocked the president's live address to the nation for an hour. this is what he put out. if you are interested in what is going on there, you can follow it there. they will not meet the united states requirements over their nuclear deal. the talks are scheduled to begin again february 18. washington, what are your thoughts? caller: our youth could not smoke. -- should not smoke. that is why we have laws.

would like people to consider the fact that if cvs wants to make their personal decision not to sell tobacco products, that is fine for their company. it is a bigs if social thing and this will help society by encouraging people to quit smoking, that is incorrect. exhaust,automobile factory pollution, and the warning on most prescription drugs. it is a matter of personal choice. there is personal responsibility in this nation and the world. sellingoesn't feel like tobacco products, that is fine for them. to make it as if it is some big this, thing to encourage i tend to disagree with that. the president praised cvs yesterday. he put out a statement applauding the decision. hhs.gov put this out.

we appreciate cvs helping to make the next generation tobacco-free. charles, oakland, california. caller: good morning. i would like to commend cvs for what they are doing. if you think about it, nobody is complaining about the various restaurants where they cannot smoke inside the restaurant, even in some apartment buildings, people are not allowed to smoke in their own apartments. what is the big deal. get rid of cigarettes. they talk about the death of cigarettes, but nobody has a number or percentage of people that die from smoking marijuana. i used to smoke when i was in the marine corps, but i quit that a long time ago. finde cannot even

cigarettes, people will not loan you a cigarette. people need to wake up and come to the realization -- if you want to smoke, do your thing at home. these people say they will not shop at cvs anymore, i guarantee you as soon as there is a sale on, they will be back. another headline this morning, the financial times, u.s. job reports expected tomorrow faces one off factors. cold weather, the expiry of unemployment benefits and the annual revisions to the numbers, this could throw off what the job numbers mean tomorrow. yesterday, we talked about whether or not -- we talked about the gop's strategy on increasing the debt ceiling. in the papers this morning, republicans do not have enough

votes. toy need 218 for reforms obamacare or the keystone pipeline to raise the debt line. they are trying to say it is a bailout for the insurance companies. republican leaders are saying they do not have 218 votes to attach that to the debt ceiling vote. in the washington times, the gop ditches its plans to tie the debt ceiling vote to keystone and obamacare. one congressman said he is not opposed to fighting on principle, but it would be similarly dismissed and is a losing battle. ceilinga clean debt extension would be capitulation

to the president. , republican, he said this. it is a mistake to cave on the debt ceiling. president obama yesterday met with senate democrats. this is a headline in the washington post. obama reaches out to party lawmakers and offers democrats help in the midterms. he'd knowledge is some won't want it. politico reports on the retreat with the democrats that the president asked senate democrats to keep their powder dry on trade agreements until after the 2014 election and that there would be more of a possibility of pushing that item. that is our topic coming up.

we will have a roundtable discussion on the fast track authority and that pending trade agreements with european union and pacific partners. daniel,move onto dallas, texas. democratic caller and a smoker. what do you make of this? listening to some of the other callers, i think it is thatulous and hypocritical someone is talking about smoking marijuana instead of cigarettes. in my entire life, i have always heard that one marijuana cigarette is like smoking seven cigarettes. goes, commonly cigarette deaths are therefore smoking cigarettes while under the influence and killing people on the streets when they sell are mothersch there

against drunk drivers and all these organizations. cvs is going to go ahead and sell liquor, while these other things that they are selling are killing people, literally. market andhe drug half of the drugs they sell behind the counter, they have all of these counter effects, including chantix. have sidese you to

effects including anger, violence, and they are promoting those drugs as well. it is ridiculous that they are blaming it on all of these things on cigarettes and holding that as a responsibility when there is all of these other things. the first two aisles in cvs is to go into are nothing but candy and junk. as a smoker, how much do you spend a month on smoking? caller: i am trying to stop. it is for personal health reasons. it is a habit. i have started using the vapor e-cigarettes, but the vapor pipes. it has helped a lot. that is my choice. if i want to spend my money that i have earned on smoking

cigarettes, as opposed to drinking a bottle of wine or buying a bottle of vodka or buying whatever, that is my choice. jason, texas. caller: good morning. i do not understand this. i don't understand the anger that is in people's voices this morning. we will take a few more calls. front page of the washington times, below the fold, the story irs e-mail reveals learner's role in tax rule to restrain nonprofits. her involvement taints the entire process and should force

the tax agency to cancel its crackdown. the hearings continue into the irs targeting political groups up on capitol hill today. we will have coverage of that. go to c-span.org to find out more. you can join the conversation on our twitter page if you use the #cspanchat. weather woes cost airlines 150 -- 100 $50 million and flyers $2.5 billion. the u.n. panel criticizes the vatican over abuse. a u.n. committee called on the vatican to remove all child abusers from its rank, report them to law enforcement, and

open the church's archives so that bishops and other officials who concealed crimes could be held accountable. times, the new york white house is announcing seven regional climate hubs. this is being done by executive order by the president. creation of the climate hubs is a limited step, but part of a broader campaign by the administration to advance climate policy wherever they can. linda, oklahoma city, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i would like to applaud cvs. a drugstore selling something that will kill you.

i know they sell oxycontin all that kind of stuff. ofy ought to be aware what they take into their body. host: how long have you been smoking? caller: years, off and on, since i was 21. i am 58. i used to have a beautiful singing voice, now i can't sing worth anything. bronchitis -- anyway. that is it for our discussion this morning.

you can keep the conversation going on our social media pages. you can go to facebook or twitter. some other headlines before we move on. the sochi olympics get underway today. the washington journal will be all about the sochi olympics tomorrow. here's a story on "marketwatch." failed to finish as horror stories emerge. a reporter was told that his room would be ready shortly. here's is a look at his hotel room. the company telling him it would be ready shortly. here's is a tweet from another sochier that says the olympics are off to a rough start and they have not begun. times" reporting there is a dispute about getting

yogurt that is made in upstate new york into russia. chuck schumer and chris and jill brand weighing in on this. they want russia to open up their markets to this greek yogurt. billie jean king will not be attending the opening because her mother is ill. that is from "the associated press" this morning. a billionaire is engaged in a last-ditch effort ave dogs running around the sochi olympic area. they will be killed if they are not found or brought to this area. ourcan tune in tomorrow to "washington journal."

coming up next, we are to turn our attention to pending trade deals and whether or not president obama can get fact track authority. later on, david boren will be joining us from the university of oklahoma. we will be right back. ♪ >> i came to washington to conduct investigations. we have conducted investigations for a year and a half, five or six days a week, eight or 10 hours a day.

i had a great galaxy of people on the stand. would call a man if we knew he was going to invoke the fifth amendment. >> we continue our series of oral history interviews. this week, william oh. douglas -- william o douglas. >> according to the constitution of this country and bring the spirit and the meaning of the constitution to fruition.

then and only then [indiscernible] americanism will be converted into [indiscernible] another religious leader in indiana, my home state, was beginning to borrow from his teachings. youtube invests -- utopian tests replicated many of the teachings of father divine. from father divine's peace mission movement to jim jones. part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3.

continues. journal >host: we're back. is here daniel ikenson as well as daniel ikenson. fast-track authority gives the president the authority to negotiate international trade but he cannot amend or filibuster. why do you oppose this? the president has the authority to negotiate constitutionally. it is a very intense check and balance the cannot out of the original boston tea party. founders, gave

congress exclusive authority over trade. one president cannot make a trade policy for some side interest. as a result, there has had to be some mechanism for congress and the executive branch to coordinate it. fast track was a system cooked up by richard nixon were the congress delegates away of constitutional authority over trade. the guarantee that congress will vote within 60 days of the house and 30 more days in the senate on a whole trade agreement, legislation the executive branch legislatione only the executive branch is allowed to write. no amendments on the floor, only 20 hours of debate, a legislative run. thepresident gets to pick country, picked the contents, and sign it before congress votes.

oppose it because we think when trade agreements are re-w , alln, swaps of policy kinds of nontrade stuff, how expensive medicines will be, when that is what is in a trade agreement, congress needs a bigger role in the checks and balances need to be restored. we need to make sure that we get the agreements that work for us. , why is itl ikenson a good idea? is thathe way it works congress is presented an agreement and it votes on it. amendments, it agrees to do it with a certain amount of time.

congress has a huge role. they lay out its objectives as parameters for the president. that is what this process is about. congress is telling the president you can go and negotiate, we will delegate that authority to you temporarily, that you have to meet all of these objectives. if you do not, we're going to take it off of the fast-track. this legislation that was introduced has 134 trade negotiation objectives expressed by congress. if the president does not meet those objectives, he will be taken off the fast-track. it is not this unconstitutional or balance of power issue that we are hearing from its opponents. what about the negotiations themselves? what happens to negotiations? considereds

necessary to get these negotiations going and completed. trade partners are not going to negotiate directly with congress. it becomes a messy process. what congressg wants, our negotiating partners are not going to put the final offers on the table. they need to know what congress is going to say. this administration has been pursuing the transpacific partnership for the past four years. in essence it has put the cart before the horse. our trade partners are sitting back and waiting for this grant of authority to know, president obama can go this far, therefore we are going to offer this much. host: can trade agreements pass without fast-track authority? guest: since it was created by

nexen, it has only ever been used 16 times. president clinton, he did not have a fast track but for two of his eight years. commerce denied him this authority. the fast-track is needed for the agreements that are overreaching, that congress and the public get worried about. the ones that are about trade liberalization, cutting border taxes, those you do not need the legislative run for. the fast-track that was used for nasa and the wto, congress said you have to put labor standards of what the competition can be. president bush and president clinton said, so what? congress is in handcuffs.

you either vote yes or you don't know. there's is no way you can stop the signing. even if the executive branch negotiators ignored congress's objectives. it is true there is language that says there are ways you can take this trade agreement off fast track, but there is another complication. you have to get two different committees and have a vote to withdraw fast-track within 60 days, which, procedurally, is impossible to achieve. couldalso true that you change the rule at any point. the problem is, you have to push a boulder up the mountain to get to the point where you can take the handcuffs off. basically, the way it is set up, one fast-track delegates authority. the executive branch is loose to do whatever it wants. the notion that other co

untries won't negotiate, transpacific has been under negotiation for the past four years. thes just say that objectives are pining. -- are binding. it is a serious problem. aret: the negotiations still going on. i thought the process should have been reversed. it will not come to conclusion without congress expressing its will. as lori suggested, there are other safeguards in place. we speak to the peruvian, colombian, or panamanian governments, they will tell you that fast-track is no guarantee congress will vote up or down on an agreement. in 2007, when the democrats took

control of both houses of congress, nancy pelosi aggregated congress's responsibility. it was not until 2011 that president obama decided to shepherd these things through after taking a shellacking in the midterm election then. it is necessary, but i agree with laurie that maybe we need to have a broader discussion because of globalization. trade is not just about border barriers. there should be a broader debate, but that does not mean that congress -- that it does not make sense for congress to lay out its objectives and have -- and grant the administration

the authority to do this. host: we will get to the trade deals and talk about them in more detail. i think our viewers know -- people are engaged on this issue. them and get them involved in the conversation. bill is first, watertown, pennsylvania. republican caller. caller: good morning. most of these trade agreements and the fact that congress keeps giving away its own responsibility, this is another example. the moneydone it with supply, they said, they gave the federal reserve the rights to take care of the currency, they , they gaveesident him the right to declare war. nobody wants to say he has the

right to declare war, but we know he does. this is another example were congress really does not want to t wants to, i sidestep it. the united states population knows that this trade agreement benefits the multinationals. i live in pennsylvania, or the amish are. do you know who they trade with? their neighbors. i share what sounds like a limited government view that came from the caller. noty view on trade, we do need trade agreements. we can achieve that ourselves. it is a domestic issue. i am a free trader. have -- we do not need the permission of foreign governors -- governments to open

our markets to competition. those of the real benefits of trade. i disagree that the beneficiaries of trade which we might as well pursue trade agreements. it does liberalize trade. consumers benefit from them. it is not multinational corporations that benefit. it is smaller companies, and consumers. the biggest barriers in the united states affect things like clothing, footwear, food, shelter. duty on nails, wood, cement, refrigerators, flooring, basically housing. textile tariffs are much higher than they are on other items. host: are you saying those are small businesses? guest: no, those are consumers. let's dig into the small

business argument. what are the numbers that show this will help small businesses? in thelet me talk abstract, if i can. trade is a trust buster. bigger companies can survive in an environment where there is protection and where tariffs are erected. when you get rid of those barriers, it allows smaller businesses to compete. one of the greatest examples of the auto industry. in the 1970's, the big three of the quality was declining, and then japanese started building companies here in the united states. that raised the game of the u.s. auto industry. if you adjust for quality and a

price difference going back to the 1970's, there has been hardly any inflation and auto prices. we attribute that to trade and openness. host: does the u.s. ever win in the so-called partnerships? since the world trade organization and nasa, some of the agreements that have been fast-track, the united states has seen 60,000 manufacturing facilities close in those 20 years. enormous amount of those were small and medium-sized businesses. those were the supply chains. pennsylvania has been clobbered, but so have faith that were supposed to be the winners like texas and california. if you go to our website and go to the trade data center, the

entire trade adjustment systems re in ae is the searchable form. you can see the factories and the workers that have been displaced. that builds up and the from her twitter, public is against these agreements. there's a fascinating poll that was done last week. it is a conservative small business group. it shows republicans are more strongly against these agreements. the issue that bill raised about congress giving up its talkrity, a lot of people about the founders rolling in their graves to see congress throwing away the authority to make sure that a trade agreement

works for us. this last generation of -- that help us. generation of trade agreements has really wiped out the u.s. and you factoring base and those middle-class jobs alone with it. guest: i have to disagree, lori. it is a myth that manufacturing is in a decline and it has been wiped out. the manufacturing sector itself, they set new records year after year with respect to revenues, x words, imports, except when we , imports,exports except when we are in recession. employment peaked in 1979. it is now down to about 12 million workers.

and absolute terms, it is growing and doing very well. government will tell us trade deal good for economy, but so far, their track record is 100% wrong. guest: i don't subscribe to the numbers that are forecast because we do not know what is going to be in the u.s. european agreement. it is hard to measure the benefits are going to be. dash.s the we don't know. let's not rely on that. what we're doing is extending the freedom of people to transact. --uitively, if you go americans like to be able to choose what provider they choose. they like to be able to go to the mall and go to a particular

store. they don't get what they want there, they go to another store. trade expands the opportunity to do that. it makes sense. let's not blame trade for stagnation in job creation, your your iphone -- iphone, for example. each one of those apps performs a job that used to be performed by a human. trade's feedll at is to ignore the benefits that come from technology and all of these other innovations. guest: what he said says it all. revenues are often manufacturing and jobs are down. for the 5 million manufacturing jobs, it is more than 5 million that have been lost since the world trade organization. those folks got new jobs.

about 20% of wages are lost when you go from outsourced into a service sector job. that has been downward pressure on wages. why, by huge majorities, there is the view that this is not working. if you do not go to the abstract, but the actual, look at this most recent agreement. that was obama's first agreement. this is the basic prediction of what will happen with the transpacific partnership. the korea agreement was the basis for tpp. expects --d more more exports and more american jobs. aports went way up, we have 37% larger trade deficit with korea. that equates to 40,000 more jobs gone. the vietnam, malaysia,

singapore, nation in the tpp and the prospect for china to join it means that that kind of agreement with vietnam at $.28 an hour wages, how can we win under these rules? danny, bluefield, west virginia. nice to talk to. these trade agreements -- when the history of the united states is written, it is going to be recorded the united states economic dominance of the world was destroyed by a series of traitors. they are negotiating the transpacific partnership with the benefit and cooperation of a0 corporate lobbyist, not single labor representative, not a single environmentalist, it is cloaked in secrecy. alan grayson tried to get information, he was not allowed

to bring a notepad to look at what they were discussing and what they were negotiating. it is all done one-sided. the corporations control the whole thing. everybody has seen what a catastrophic mess these trade agreements have made of our economy. guest: i want to suggest that is a bit overwrought. there is access to the process. this administration has been more secretive than previous administrations. i do not see the correlation between trade agreements and declines and jobs and manufacturing. the united states is the world's, attracts more investment from around the world. if trade agreements are encouraging companies to invest

in china or mexico, we need to look at the numbers. there is one chilly in dollars of foreign investment in u.s. manufacturing. here? companies invest they are here because it is the world's largest market and has high skilled workers. the rule of law is adhered to. we are competing for investment and not for export markets. that is the way the trade debate is formed. we have to have the best policies. the united states had 31% --39% of foreign direct investment was in the united states and it has declined considerably.

the rest of the world is coming online. we are chasing investment away. we need to compete with that investment. we will thrive if we keep in american companies invested as well. host: what are these foreign investors doing right now? guest: there is lots of investments coming into the united states. host: are they sitting on the sidelines? the u.s.e more open is, the fewer restrictions on imports and exports. you invest in a location where there were fewer frictions in the supply chain. regulatorycost with requirements that differ.

there is a lot of focus on regulatory harmonization between the u.s. and europe. many people suggest we are guiding public health and safety regulations. we are talking about cutting superfluous regulations. an appliance power cord has to be one meter long in europe and three feet in the united states. lots of manufacturers have to adhere to two different standards. it is about getting rid of those inconsistencies. host: we have a tweet for you, lori wallach. [laughter] policy is theeign one that folks default to when a

job disaster occurs for any trade agreement. mexican is do nafta, going to fall into chaos, said mr. clinton. we did not have to and it looks like immigration doubled from mexico. folks were desperate and they left. mexico has fallen apart and is in drug chaos. a lot of things that happened -- end up happening when you pass the trade agreement. disaster. that is funny. honduras. coup in arguments, the

data have proved contrary. the most devastating is the effect they had in mexico. website, study at our tradewatch.org, 20 years of nafta. you can go back to the original sources. it is the antithesis of what has transpired. down not as if god came and said, here is free-trade. it is one set of rules. the transpacific partnership is one set of rules. 24 chapters on food standards and how we can regulate banks. can we buy local preferences. on related to trade -- ub

nrelated to trade. you see the result of that version after 20 years has not been good. host: john next in pennsylvania. caller: hello. i agree with the fellow from west virginia. there is a reason this has been done in sequence he. alan grayson and wikileaks. wikileaks got a hold of this and expose the public to this. otherwise secrecy would have worked. how this takes away sovereignty. sovereignty will be controlled either the corporations as opposed to the countries themselves. host: lori wallach. guest: something i wanted to reference.

a look at yesterday's "the new york times," there was a report that quoted all kinds of folks who support free trade. guest: including me. guest: who have concerns about the secrecy. if you want to see the list, go to our website, expose thetpp.org. that is a real list of corporate advisors who have security clearance. sovereigntye with --conservative folks like ron paul are also against these agreements.one of the things wikileaks exposed with a chapter in the tpp that would set off that iftra tribunals we u.s. got into the tpp,

would be submitted to the jurisdiction of tribunals where the u.s. government could get directly suit any foreign investor or corporation to properly enforce a private treaty with the right to demand payment from our treasury for any u.s. domestic law they think undermines their perspective profit. they have the right to attack our government. -- that attacktic pushback,ng a lot of as is the basic rule of tpp, which is every signatory shall conform its regulations procedures to the attached chapters. all of our future laws have to

meet this international a-day of law. host: let me show our viewers the article you are talking about, in case you are interested. hi, daryl. you are on the air. caller: i would like to talk about the most obvious thing. have incurred deficits equaling $9 trillion. that will double up because there is no multiplier. it doubles up overseas. all the trade agreements we have trading, most favorite status, nothing has seemed to work. we are promised that will increase exports.

it is just not true. guest: let me address that. the way we talk about trade. the idea that it is us versus them. that our points are measured by u.s. exports. that the trade account is a scoreboard and it shows the deficit. trade does not lend itself to a sports metaphor. engagingt individuals in transactions. everybody is getting value out of it. tradeip side of the account is the current account is the capital account. money that goes out of the united states to purchase exports comes back in as investment in u.s. assets and

government debt. that is all put to use in creating jobs. there is a positive correlation between trade deficits and job creation. almost 50 years of trade deficits and the u.s. economy has grown 30 handsomely. to suggest trade deficits are deleterious misses the fact that all this money is coming back in as investment. if $9 trillion with a big problem, the unemployment rate would be significantly higher. tweet.e have this guest: yeah. that is a very interesting question. the question is what rules would do better for us?

this gets to darrell's point. we have taken on a particular model of trade agreements. we are a country dragged down by a growing trade deficit. these are policy choices. this is what is at stake. get nafta on steroids with vietnam. if you want to do something different, that is your choice. i want trade. this to get to darrell's point. the trade deficit we have had or how you figure out what the effect is. the government does a multiplier. pert now is about 4000 jobs billion dollars of trade.

it is based on going from what was before nafta a $2 billion surplus with mexico. then you look at -- it multiplies. that balance -- dan does not like the way it is measured. if you look at it in the way it affects the economy, it is the affect of what kind of job and what kind of. wages host: monica says this on twitter. guest: exactly. thinking. my way of if you go to our website, tradewatch.org, if you would get rid of all of these extraneous things that are in the transpacific partnership -- why

is a trade agreement expanding monopolies on drug patents? that stuff should not be in there. host: could you agree to that? guest: let's expand trade. they deal with issues that penetrate deeper into regulatory. there are room for rules that are not good. they are good for consumers and i generally support them. let's look at the rules that might create problems. ncern.e lori's co we are focusing on that. i think outsourcing is legitimate. companies should be able to invest abroad.

we shouldn't subsidize outsourcing and that is what investors state does. that ant this insurance they can go to a third-party tribunal and get a ruling and get compensated. it can come back to haunt us here if a foreign company was to sue a third-party tribunal. then it would actualize what lori has been talking about for many years. the concerns are the risk on par with an airplane wreck. butappens very infrequently it is a risk we should consider addressing. host: american hero on twitter. i want to focus on the process

of this in washington and as these trade deals are getting done. we have this headline in politico. talking about trade agreements. harry reid said it will be wise for no one to bring up fast-track authority now. the president said let's wait until after 2014 and i will have a touch better chance of pushing my agenda. is this not going to happen until after the 2014 election? onest: the real fight fast-track will be in the house. he has been saying we need x number of democrats and i will bring y number of republicans

and let's get this done. host: then the jump then. -- let me jump in. you count votes. 0-plus he has got 23 members of his own. to pass the18 colombian agreement. if the speaker thinks fast-track , he should knock himself out. many democrats have said they want to replace fast-track. they want something different. the senior member of the trade committee could not be a because the

discussions would not include improvements to the old nixon-era fast-track. likeght to be retired 8-track tapes. we have updated trade authority and i think you would find more support. that is not what the big companies want. i think we will still have a house fight before the election. >> i think harry reid -- guest: i think harry reid's comments, it is an opening salvo. i think the white house breathed a sigh of relief. the president said once a year at the state of the union he chopped a note in on trade -- he dropped an note in on trade.

the president has not made a public case to address this public concern. he is not willing to stand up to the left and demonstrate how these agreements will be beneficial to americans. he has been running away from it. trade to expand because it is good for the economy. he also thinks trade exacerbates income inequality. i think he should be making a public case. maybe people are tired of speech that don't have action following up and his word does not matter anymore. he should be responding to criticism that this is a secretive agreement and opening up this agreement is bad for investors state and public

health. it was never a response. these concerns metastasize. it makes it very difficult for democrats to support it. trade is an issue that unifies republicans. i can see what harry reid would want to kick the can down the road a little bit. host: the headline this morning in "the wall street journal." the top trade advisor acknowledges the challenges. here is a quote from him. "i am spending basically every day up there." are you running into him? guest: i have not run into him. hopefully he is talking to people and i am talking to

people who are still thinking about it. he probably is putting in a lot of time up there. he has been doing group meetings after-hours. members can ask questions. interesting and unusual. how many republicans have problems with fast-track. fast-track has been hard to get. in the last 20 years, fast-track has been in effect for five years. most people think every president has had fast-track. it has been such a huge giveaway of authority. it has been a hard fight. ron paul and rand paul saying things against it and the tea party campaigning against it.

there seem to be more republican opposition. the democrats have been saying we need to replace that. coming together will be a knockdown drag out in the house. host: back to our viewers. let's go to landry in texas. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. vu allike it is déjà over again. , nafta was anra issue. clinton said he was going to fix nafta. he was against it when bush was for it. he was going to fix nafta.

what did he do to fix it? that is my question. it didn't convicts gephardt and a majority of democrats who voted for it. that is something we hear from our viewers. is it nafta? guest: host i hope so. it was good for canada. we have an integrated north american economy. did he fix it? there was really nothing to fix. a major complaint from unions was that it would exacerbate labor problems or investment would take advantage of wage disparity between the united states and mexico.

the side agreements were negotiated by mickey kantor to require that mexico and the united states and canada honor the laws they have on the books with respect to labor and the environment. those kinds of standards are within trade agreements. there is movement to make them as rigorous as possible. when the democrats took over reopened language and required these provisions be inserted into the agreements. that is where we are now. i think it is something we can live with. host: let's go to dave in michigan. caller: good morning. on withpretty much spot

everything she says. if there is so much investment as a result of these trade agreements, why have applicants for every job openings? the jobs are not here. i don't see how trade pertains to more jobs in this country. history has proven that there are two things that run a great economy, agriculture and manufacturing. manufacturing in this country is on the downside, and so is agriculture. host: let's take those points. agreements help agriculture? guest: by lowering trade barriers, we will see investment efficients most

resources. said, isring, as i doing very well and will continue to do well. there anymore.t i don't think we should be blaming trade. muches in demand are very at the core of this explanation. economists are trying to figure out what is the best way forward. is not theoff trade way to address job loss. host: we have to leave it there. i encourage our viewers to go to your websites and learn more. public citizen on

twitter. theel ikenson heads up trade policy studies. thank you both. interesting conversation. the c-span bus is in oklahoma today as part of the tour of big 12 colleges. we will talk to the president of the university of oklahoma, david boren. we will talk about issues current and former and his career next in education, after this radio break from c-span radio. >> more on trade authority. the next chairman of the senate. making itmmittee is plain to president obama he will

not rush forward with fast-track. he has no plans to take up the bill written by max baucus. instead he says he will hear other senators on trade, a policy he says has changed since the last time a fast-track will was approved. a lightning strike that injured an air traffic controller has exposed a potential vulnerability during storms and is prompting administrators to inspect hundreds of towers nationwide. the faa look for problems with the lightning protection system for airport towers where air traffic controllers do the vital job of choreographing the landings and takeoffs of tens of thousands of flights each day. ofdy davis says her support us up at of supporting gun

rights with allowing people to openly carry their weapons in public. the concept is known as and allows holders to carry a pistol on their hip without having to hide it. her position aligns her with her republican rival, greg abbott. he has a concealed handgun license and ms. davis says she wants to get one, too. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. it is really a new shipment of the president and that has always been the case. the president is always the master. i served under seven presidents. they each come to view it as their personal prop stand. they don't have to worry about the normal congressional appropriations process.

convenient and attractive and sometimes overly in theve tool foreign-policy arsenal. cia, saturdayhe night on afterwards, part of booktv this weekend on c-span2. comment on last night's guest. join the conversation. go to booktv.org. host: our bus is in norman, oklahoma, home of the university of oklahoma. aboard our bus is the president of the university of oklahoma, david boren. if i could begin with the state of higher education in oklahoma

and this country. guest: we are glad to have you. i would like to give the a warm welcome to the university of oklahoma where the wind chill is morning.e this we are facing a critical moment. that is true in virtually all the states of the union. states they used to be providing 40%,f university budgets, it has slid down to 16%. it is being cut all over the united states. most universities are getting less from the state then they did in 2008. we are in the process of slowly turning those affordable public universities into higher-priced private universities.

down,te funding goes funding from the students and their families has to go up. that has cost us to drop from first in the world in the percentage of our college age students going on to college education. it is devastating we are slowly but surely this investing in public higher education in the country. host: your governor is calling for $50 million cuts in oklahoma. how does it impact your school? what does it mean? how do you adjust? guest: you adjust working harder. we raised $2 billion over the last 15 or 20 years. it means your researchers -- we

have a new research park which is ranked number one in the country from the national association of research campuses. we are doing that. costs are shifted from the state. the state except less and he goes to families and working students and makes it harder for them to come to the university. economicest period of prosperity, real income doubled right after the g.i. bill, world war ii. the state governments and the national government got together and made higher education available to all the people. we should learn something from that. it is the most important factor that we have in the world markets. we are still doing very well. we are number one in the nation

here at the university of oklahoma of all the public universities in the national merit scholars we have on board. last year we had a rhodes scholar in our student body, a marshall scholar, a goldwater, the fulbright. the odds of that are 20,000 to one. we are holding ourselves accountable. it is very discouraging, especially for students and their families to see the state governments cut back. tour ofspan is doing a the big 12 colleges and today our bus is at the home of the university of oklahoma. aboard the bus is our guest, david boren, the first person to serve as governor of the state, a senator, and now president of the oklahoma university. you talk about state budgets and

cutting back. that means that students are picking up more of the tab. how much does it cost to go to the university of oklahoma? year. about $17,000 a that includes room and board as well as tuition and all the fees and some cost for books and other things. "the washington post" had a chart and a pick the top universities in the country and how much it cost for a student to go. i looked at the chart. i was very happy to see we were number 50, the least cost all the way down of all the major universities in the country. but that is still a lot of money

and it is going up rapidly and making public universities more like private universities, which historically have been much more expensive. people have been finding their way in our society, by getting a good education. that is one reason why the middle class is shrinking. we are becoming a country of wealthy and a large number people to drop down to the bottom of the economic scale. this is part of the problem. host: what is the role of the federal government in this? guest: i think the government could consider stepping in and as they didate, after world war ii. they kept faith with those who fought, those who were part of the war effort and made higher education virtually free.

i'm not suggesting they could afford to do that. they are stressed much more than many of the states, which are cutting education. i do think they can provide incentives by providing perhaps some additional support that would be sent to the local level where a major effort is being made to support higher education. i think the decision making has to stay at the state and local level. host: we are talking about higher education with david boren. we want your thoughts. please talk calling and now. carol in north carolina, you are up first. caller: and my listening to a person? host: you are on the air. caller: you just keep running me

over. host: please go ahead with your question or comment. caller: we got the lottery in north carolina. first i don't know how many years, they were sitting on the money. i don't know what they did with it. they weren't building schools and stuff. people started speaking up and hollering about it. host: lottery money being used for education in this country. guest: yes. we have a lottery in oklahoma and it does provide funds for higher education. i would have to say it is a drop in the bucket. a small amount in terms of the cost of educating our students.

oklahoma, the percentage of the --of the budget has dropped down to 16%. i include the lottery as state money. we are simply not able to make it. we continue in a lot of other states to cut taxes. they are proposing another tax cut in oklahoma, which will amount to $30 a year or less from most oklahomans. and yet the schools continue to fall down in the rankings. here we are. our greatest asset when we try to can be with other countries. we have been falling down drastically in our ability to keep up with countries like china and india. majority ofe a huge

the greatest universities in the world. we have students from 11 countries here at -- 111 countries here at ou. it keeps us on the cutting edge of technology. why would we be so foolish as to disinvest and to cut back on the thing that is our greatest asset in terms of our ability to compete with the rest of the world? host: we have a tweet about that issue. guest: i think international students are great thing for american universities.

building allies for this country, we live in a global environment. is a good thing for our students to know what is going on in the rest of the world. we have gone from 2% of our own students studying abroad to over 25%. that is important. they are going to live in a global environment. they are going to work for nonprofits. they may do all sorts of other things. are going totoday have to live and work in a global environment. not understanding the rest of the world, how they with people from other countries is like not to shouldn't have to read and write. do foreignuch

students pay for their education here? do they pay the full rate? guest: most of them do. it is one way many american universities are upsetting the fact that the states are not meeting their responsibilities. they have international students. our students learn so much from them and they learn so much from us. overall they pay a little bit more. it helps the budgets of colleges to have these international students. we charge less because our taxpayers are paying for 16% of this university. we will be down to 14% if the budget gets adopted. are waye colleges that down in the single digits from the state. 6%, is state pays 3%,

that a public university or a private university? in means we will be less competitive. we are not going to have the product of --productivity we have had in the past. where did all the strength come from? it has come from us having the best educated people in the world and the most productive workforce. that is the foundation. we should not foolishly throw that asset away. host: david boren is the 13th president of the university of is aboard our c-span bus as we visit norman, oklahoma, today. gerald is up next from florida. sir.r: yes,

i did ministry work and work with a lot of college kids. god but if they mention anything about god or jesus christ, and we have a liberal arts college, they will be failed outright. i am concerned about the left and their policies about these colleges. i am 57 years old and retired. it seems like the more money we make available for college students, the more the college price goes up. host: mr. boren? guest: i think we have to do everything we can to try to cut costs. institutionsur

have saved into the hundreds of millions of dollars and finding ways to cut back on how we do information technology and other things. we feel it heavy responsibility to do our part. we have absorbed $100 million in cuts. that means we have made savings. we have absorbed $100 million in cuts. i mentioned that chart of the top 50 colleges. we were the least expensive. we have raised tuition and fees the least, even though we are receiving $100 million less for our students that we did five years ago. collegea university or should be a place where we teach students to think for themselves

and where we address the most important questions of life. here at the university of oklahoma you would not find somebody penalize for expressing their views. churchpus is ringed by organizations of various kinds. our students are able to take religious studies. we don't say you should be in this church or that mosque are that temple. we study and we talk about it in the classroom, the most important questions in life, like why are we here? we are very careful to be neutral between churches and religious faiths and those who are still struggling to find their religious faith or definition. inquiry.ally free they talk about their belief in christianity and they would not

be punished. they would be part of the conversation. how can you say we will take care of their bodies? we just won the sugar bowl. we are proud of that. we have 56 student athletes make straight a's. you need exercise. i agree with the caller. you need to be able to talk about these important things and to respect people's points of view. host: john is next, democratic caller. caller: good morning. how are you doing? guest: doing well. a little cold. caller: we try to send it to you guys. . have two issues how can you say to these people,

why do you want to talk about -- why you want to talk about views. and you talk to anybody you want to, but not in a classroom. i think that is what you guys are talking about. you mentioned christ. not in a classroom. you talk about english, math. host: all right. guest: absolutely. if you talk about physics, you talk about physics. or whatever it happens to be. but outside around the campus environment, having religious organizations and clubs you can belong to, if you of a certain religious faith, you can. here at university of oklahoma there is free speech. the only place that religion is

talked about would be in the religious studies program. they would be talking about hinduism or buddhism or islam. how can our students understand what is going on in the middle east if you take no eastern studies if you don't know about the different factions within islam that are fighting with each other? so you have to learn about the religions in the world. that is a legitimate subject. not to be disrespect if. but you are right. the core curriculum, and it is important to learn the core curriculum, like history. we have to know how it became great in the first place. there are a lot of things we have to know that our basic. we don't disrespect people are try to limit their freedom of

speech on this cap this the cause they have religious views. teaching the hard-core subjects is the first mission of the university. we have churches and synagogues and others that have as their mission the teaching of the religious faith. campus. ban it on the i thank you for your remarks. host: we have a tweet. i think that is may be true in some fields. and we are. we have been looking at our curriculum. it should not just be graduate students teaching freshman. we should have our very best professors exposed to our students in their first year. our students need to study

abroad. there are debates about how long a person needs to be in college. we are using digital technology where we should and can. we cannot use it as a set the to for getting to know each other, learning about tolerance and forming communities. i'm a serious problem is this colorization. i was in the senate --is this polarization. we tried to have potluck dinners. we got together all the times and we worked together. we realize there was something more important than democrats or republicans. it was the united states of america. students learn how to create community, how to go out later, how to create communities is by living in a community during

their time in college. we call our community a family. that is not just a slogan. we learn to respect and love each other. those things take some time to do. i am not saying we should be as cost effective as we can. we should. host: what is the job right after graduation for the university of oklahoma/ ? guest: it is very, very high, and higher in some fields than others. we have the number one college of meteorology in the world. if thereher forecast, is a severe storm headed toward washington, d.c., that report is coming from our campus. we have our college of meteorology.

half of the building is occupied by us. they are all here working together. %. have a virtually 100 engineering.leum we have one of the top schools in the country. boomve an oil and gas going on in this country. we are going from a big importer to a possible exporter. the employment rate of our students in that field was 120%. thanle lot more jobs students. we have students graduating in that field and making more their first year working then we are able to pay our faculty. our job placement rate is very

high. people today will have many occupations and when not stay in the same job. trainre desperate to citizens who can't take part in politics and to help bring back my partisanship again. they need to take american history. how are they going to become voters? educated voters. there are certain things we cannot leave out and went bicycling --and we basically must teach our students. host: let's hear from robert in tennessee. hi, robert. caller: good morning. i have watched c-span for a long time. i wanted to ask dr. boren, the

inflationary policies that are government and the member banks aem to follow which leads to gradual devaluing of our currency place in the trade and education. operate with we other people's money, we don't show the same restraint than if we used our own. i had a hard time hearing that. i think it was a discussion about the federal reserve and our discipline when it comes to spending. we are in a dangerous situation in this country. we have to find a way to have more restraint. we are loaded down with debt.

we are loading our students with debt. they have to borrow to go to college. we have to think about that. there has to be discipline. that is not only the federal reserve but in the congress. we have to spend our money on things that matter. we have to decide if we can make things free to everyone, like health insurance. can we make it free to everybody when people make millions of dollars a year and can't afford to pay for their own health insurance. should we start to means test certain things? i was in a budget balancing coalition of members and we worked very hard to have restraint. we are passing on the bill to the next generation. we are passing on this huge national debt and more personal

debt because they have to borrow to go to college. our parents and grandparents sacrificed for us. they made sure our generation was the best educated generation in any country in the world. cuts,giving ourselves tax paying less for our children and grandchildren, and pushing the debt and the loans onto them. that is not right. we need to change our priorities. host: the governor of oklahoma and was in the state legislature and in the national guard. anthony, democratic caller. caller: i have a couple of questions. why is it it takes me six months to be able to get in? you read the same tweets from

the same people three times as show. american hero, all these other people. the same people. it is unfair. it takes me six months to get a phone call in. do something about that. something.boren how much do you pay your head coach, your football coach, and your basketball head coach, the female? how much is that? we do: approximately -- not pay out-of-state funds or tuition anything. the athletic budget at the university of oklahoma, because of the sale of our tickets, and are athletic programs are so successful. our program makes a profit.

we received about $10 million from our athletic budget, which not the itself, not us, taxpayers are the students. it is self-supporting. they give us $10 million for library and salaries and other things we need. we are one of six or seven programs that are able to do that. we don't pay them with tax-supported money or these other funds. they pay themselves. million dollars or so for the coaches. women's basketball, different markets. we have to compete with alabama. alabama is a wonderful state with a lot of fans. we just beat thtem. they pay their coach $7 million.

about $5 million. host: i have to jump in because the house is coming in early. i want to thank you for coming aboard the c-span bus this morning in norman, oklahoma, and talking with our viewers about higher education. we appreciate your time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] much.thank you very that does it for today's "washington journal." now live coverage of the house here on c-span.

.

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

the eaker pro tempore: house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., february 6, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable doc hastings to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, monsignor steven rosetti, washington, d.c. the chaplain: o god, you are the lord of heaven and earth,

yet, you are humble and your delight to serve us, your beloved children. we pray that we, too, might have that same spirit of humility and a deep desire to serve. may we be especially mindful of those who are struggling, those who are suffering and those who are poor. you have a special love for them, may we have that same love. we thank you for being the humble, loving god that you are. may we become more like you, loving, humble, serving. name. this in your holy amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker,

pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from neal.husetts, mr. mr. neal: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side.

for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. blumenauer: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, wednesday in a congressional hearing under oath, the deputy director of the office of drug control policy could not answer my direct questions. what's more dangerous, methamphetamine or marijuana? how many people died from marijuana last year? he complained that people think marijuana is benign. well, i don't think marijuana is benign, but i can understand how people get confused when so-called experts cannot give straight answers and federal law says that marijuana is more dangerous than cocaine and methamphetamines which everybody knows is a lie. unlike marijuana, tobacco use is falling. unlike marijuana, we don't lock up -- we don't arrest millions of people for using tobacco.

tobacco use has been cut almost 2/3 because we've been honest about the facts. maybe there's a lesson for our drug policy officials. if you want to discourage marijuana use, be honest and be direct. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. neal: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. neal: mr. speaker, i rise today to talk about a piece of legislation that i've introduced to boost our economy, invest in our crumbling infrastructure and create jobs. the economy is in need of a jolt, the per verbial shot in the arm to get it moving again. the need for this legislation is clear. our unemployment is too high, job creation is too low and income inequality. eight million jobs were wiped up during the recession. we have to get them back. i introduced the invest in us act, the invest in the u.s. act. my legislation will go a long

way toward helping the economy take off again. it makes strategic investments in infrastructure, bond measures, wildly successful build america bonds programs, makes the r&d tax credit permanent and many other tax credit initiatives. the invest in the u.s. act also takes full aim at rising income inequality. the american people want one thing, an employed economy and more jobs. join me in supporting this legislation that will finance critical infrastructure investments. fight income inequality and grow our economy. the argument is about jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mrs. davis: wildfires, these concerns are expressed over and over again from my constituents

in my district. people are anxious that the world they are handing down to their children is not as pristine as the one they inherited. they plea with us to protect the environment. and yet time and again the house majority votes to undercut clean air and water laws while blocking efforts to protect public lands. what a travesty when a leading industry takes precedence over maintaining a healthy environment. this week we wasted precious floor time with needless bills had the sacramento been-san joaquin emergency water delivery act. the house needs to stop bringing irresponsible bills to the floor, giving away our cherished lansdz and stripping away environmental protections deal with thing to problems, like the drought in california. they say environmental regulations slow the economy but let's be honest. putting appropriations above our environment is a

dangerously expensive notion. let's stop being reactionary and get ahead of these real problems facing our planet. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? ms. hanabusa: mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. hanabusa: thank you, mr. speaker. long-term unemployment has not been this high in this great country since world war ii. it is time to look back in our history and see what the leaders did then. we can always learn from the past. 1944, the president was franklin delano roosevelt. his vision was expand economic opportunity, jobs, to build the middle class we must rebuild and help them thrive and fight inequality. mr. speaker, how about beginning with women? today we have more than 50 million people, 13 million of them are children, living below poverty in this country. we have the greatest economy in the world. this is absolutely shameful. we must adopt and be committed to the concept of full

employment. take up the president's america jobs act of 2013. we build this country's infrastructure. invest in education, in our first responders and in medical researchers. this is time to put america first and make it in america. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 2954. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 472 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the

committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2954. the chair appoints the gentleman from california, mr. denham, to preside over the ommittee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2954 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to authorize escambia county, florida, to convey certain property that was formerly part of santa rosa island national monument and that was conveyed to escambia county subject to restrictions on use and reconveyance. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, the public access and lands

improvement act, h.r. 2954, is a bipartisan package of 10 bills to protect and promote public access to lands. to improve opportunities by removing red tape that stands in the way of responsible, local economic development and jobs and to encourage transparent community-centered land management. this small grouping of bills will advance important local projects that will have a direct impact on jobs and on economic growth in communities throughout the country. the package includes several commonsense land conveyance bills to remove unnecessary bureaucratic strings attached to how land is used and how it's managed. it recognizes that locally elected leaders, not federal bureaucrats, know how to best manage certain lands. there are measures to prevent unreasonable federal regulations or actions from destroying a historic lookout

tower in my home state of washington, blocking unreasonable public recreation access to the cape hatteras seashore in north carolina and preventing the use of hand-powered boats, such as kayaks in several national parks in the west. bill implements commonsense reforms. livestock grazing on federal lands is an important part of american ranching tradition. this bill would help our nation's ranchers operate more efficiently and with greater certainty. in the package, also includes legislation sponsored by the public lands subcommittee chairman, mr. bishop of utah, require the b.l.m. to have an interstate data base for b.l.m. lands that are for sale to the

public. in the 2014, when a seahawks' fan with purchase a championship hat on the internet, just moments after the super bowl ends, the federal government can certainly get its act together and post its lands that are available for sale online. this bill will expedite the planning and implementation of emergency salvage timber sales in california that were ravaged by the rim fire last summer. without prompt emergency action, the impacts of this devastating wildfire could become even worse. fire damaged trees, invite disease, invite insect infestations and increase the risk of future wildfires and they are a threat to visitor safety. emergency salvage and forest restoration efforts should not be delayed due to bureaucratic

hurdles and lawsuits. finally, the bill provides for transparency and accountability on how federal funds are spent in protecting the chesapeake bay. this small package of bills is reasonable, responsible and it reflects the will of local communities and their elected leaders. it deserves support, i believe, from democrat and republican colleagues. before concluding my remarks on this piece of legislation and listening to the statement to the gentleman from arizona, i would like to briefly address the legislative work of this committee as a whole. and the committee i speak of is the natural resources committee. just this week, the house will have considered three measures from the house natural resources committee. two of these packages were individual bills, which means a total of 18 different bills from this committee will have effectively been considered and

debated and voted upon by the house this week. prior to this week, over the first 13 months of this congress, the natural resources committee has advanced nearly 60 individual bills through the house. nearly 50 of those bills have passed on a broad, bipartisan basis under the expedited suspension process. 10 bills under the jurisdiction of the committee, both republican and democrat, have been signed by the president, which represents a noticeable percentage of the public laws that have been enacted by this congress. these totals do not include individual bills, including other measures such as bills that were included in the defense authorization act. mr. chairman, this is not made as a pat on the back but to make clear the intent that this committee does act on priorities for our nation. they may be narrow bills, to

resolve problems or broad measures affecting the country as a whole. the nature of our committee is to deal with bills that deal on very pa oak kial issues and that's why there are so many bills that come out of our committee. on matters of broad policy, there are great urgency such as restoring responsible active forest management and to boast economic communities. we did pass the bill earlier this year, just yesterday the house moved swiftly to provide a solution to the devastating drought in california. we have also acted on multiple bipartisan measures to streamline red tape and boost america's ability to safely harness our vast energy resources to create jobs because we know the energy jobs are good-paying jobs to strengthen

our national security by reducing our dependence on energy from hostile nations. on each of these measures, it's time for the senate to act and pass their own proposals so we can then work to reach an agreement if there are the necessary obviously differences between both houses, but they need to pass their legislation so we can work on differenceses so measures can become law. we have differences, but we have the responsibility to put real forward for the challenges facing the american people. and there are dozens of bills solving local problems, implementing locally supported solutions and establishing protections for historic and special places that can be acted on by both the house and the senate. i believe that this is possible in matters under the jurisdiction of the natural resources committee, that we can

find common ground with the senate. now why do i say that? because we have successfully done so repeatedly over this last year. that's why there are noticeable of public laws from our committee that have been acted on by the house and have gone to the president. but, as always, this will require willingness to recognize and respect differences in philosophy and procedure in both the house and in the senate. and it must be a two-way street where each chamber acts on its own priorities. but again, this has successfully been done in the past and i know it can be done in the future. the republican majority in the house has demonstrated our willingness to do so while maintaining our fundamental views on federal land management, the importance of multiple use of public lands and ability of local communities to make better decisions for themselves than the federal bureaucracy. so as we conclude this week's

full slate of action on house natural resource committee bills, i pledge to continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the capitol to make progress in the days, weeks and months ahead. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: i yield myself such time as i may consume. let me congratulate the chairman on the seahawks and also remind him there was a long 16-game season. they won their division. they played san francisco three times, two out of three, and then after that, they went into the playoffs and after the playoffs went to the championship game and super bowl which they won. congratulations. great that you got that cap one minute after the game was over.

there was a long deliberate process with rules, games to be won that encompassed a great -- encompassed the whole season and sometimes rushing legislation is cutting corners that great championship teams like the seahawks never do. let me, if i may, mr. speaker, cartwright from pennsylvania. i will have more to say. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. mr. cartwright: i thank mr. grijalva. i rise today to express my opposition to h.r. 2954 mistitled public access and lands improvement act rather than improving our nation's lands, this bill negatively affects our land management decisions and conveys or disposes of federal lands

improperly and rewrites grazing policy and it waives numerous environmental laws like the natural environmental policy act, the wilderness act and endangered species act. h.r. 2954 contains a number of provisions that would undermine the responsible balance of interests and considerations in the stewardship of our nation's lands and our nation's resources. included in the myriad of poor land management provisions that this bill puts together is language that gives away thousands of acres of federal land in florida, alaska and nevada, valued at millions of dollars without a transparent public planning process. when the federal government gives away land we do so with certain understandings of how it will be used. it is just wrong to change the rules without due consideration and without any compensation for

the federal government, the taxpayers of this nation, if others will now profit from this land. another ill advised provision, h.r. 29 4 prevents the bureau of land management without caring out its mission. specifically, this bill requires that until the agency creates a public data base of all lands identified for disposal, b.l.m. would be barred from all land acquisitions. this is couched as a transparency measure when the reality, it is nothing more than an attempt to prevent b.l.m. from doing its important work. further, provisions of the bill would disregard or reduce public engagement on a range of community interests including natural resource protections. it would overturn a multi year national park service that has

resulted in balanced providings hat threaten shore birds and nesting sea turtle while protecting the national sea shore. the national park service should continue their management of cape hatteras national sea shore to ensure these critical protections remain in place. along with these poor management decisions and irresponsible consideration of our nation's lands and natural resources, h.r. 2954 would eliminate or delay timely reviews of grazing leases necessary for sound principles. r. 2954 includes a bill to expedite salvage logging on the rim fire area of northern california, overriding nepa and administrative and judicial review. the end result, after piecing together all these provisions is a piece of legislation that

waives federal law including laws that require consultation with federal, state, local or tribal governments or with local residents in order, among other things, to expedite timber harvest on certain federal lands in california, reverse course on the science-base national park service plan that properties appropriate balance of off-road access and protecting sea shore areas in north carolina and weakening public involvement in planning provisions. mr. chairman, our public lands and natural resources would simply be mismanaged, unprotected and undervalued as a result of this bill. i believe we have to put partisan politics aside and work together to protect and responsibly manage america's natural resources and to support and ensure that the nation's spectacular landscapes unique

natural life and cultural resources and icons endure for future generations. this bill is a giant step in the wrong direction and for all these reasons, i urge my colleagues here in the house to vote on h.r. 2954. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i'm very pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock who is an author of one of the titles of the bill. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his work on the natural resources committee and for is invaluable assistance on this bill. this summer, the biggest fire in the history of the sierra nevada mountains burned 400 square miles of forest land and left a swath of devastation that

threatens the loss of not only the affected forest land for generations to come but sets in motion that could threaten the surrounding forests for many years to come. the fire left behind hundreds of millions of board feet of dead timber on federal land that could be sold to raise millions of dollars, money that could replant our devastated lands. in addition, processing that timber would help to revive the economy of a stricken region, but time is already running out. within a year, the value of the timber declines rapidly as it it is devoured by insects and that's the problem. litigation that inevitably follows will run up the clock until it becomes absolutely worthless and it becomes worse than worthless but hazardous. insects are feasting on the dead

and dying timber and population can explode if these dead trees remain. and they won't confine themselves to the fire areas posing a threat to the adjacent forest. by the time the bureaucratic reviews and lawsuits have run their course, what was once forest land it will be converted to brush land and reforestation will be more difficult and expensive. within a few years, several feet of dry brush will buildup and the smaller trees will begin toppling on this timber. it is not more perfect to biled a fire stack than that. it will take advantage of the fuel, eroding the landscape, fouling the watersheds and jeopardizing surrounding forests. without salvage and

reforestation, we know the fate of the reforceation. the trees don't come back for many, many generations. instead, thick brush takes over the land that was once shaded by towering forests. it quickly wheams any seedling struggling to make a start. and replaces the ecosystems with scrub brush. for this reason i introduced h.r. 3188 which waives the time consuming review process and prevents the endless litigation that always follows and authorizes federal forest managers following protocols for salvage to sell the dead timber and supervise its careful removal while there is still time. . . pardon me, the millions of dollars. it was modeled on legislation authored by democratic senator

tom daschle for salvaging dead and dying trees in the black hills national forest, measure credited for speeding the recovery of that forest. unfortunately, the bill spawned lurid tales from the activist left of uncontrolled log in the sierras. nothing can be further from the truth. they vested full control of the plans with federal forest managers, not the logging companies. it left federal foresters in charge of the plan to fully protect the environment. but because of the opposition, we heard just a little bit of it a moment ago, in a few minutes i'll offer an amendment that was worked out in consultation with the u.s. forest service and several democratic offices, and i hope it will receive bipartisan support. it preserves the e.i.s. process and the environmental and judicial reviews, but it exat the indicts them and assures -- expedites them and assures that

this process can begin in the spring. there's plenty of room for compromise but there's absolutely no excuse for inaction. the left wants a policy of benign neglect. it let a quarter million acres of destroyed timber in place, to surrender the ravaged land to beetles and to watch continuously while it is replaced by scrub brush. it is true without human intervention the forest will return about a century from now but certainly not in the lifetimes of ourselves, our children or our children's children. if we want to stop the loss of this forest land and if we want to control the beetle infestation before it explodes out of control, the dead timber has to come out soon. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one more minute. mr. mcclintock: if we take it out now, we can generate the funds necessary to suppress brush buildup, plant new seedlings and restore these

forests for the use -- and enjoyment of our children if we wait for the normal bureaucratic reviews and litigation and delays, we will have lost these forests for the next several generations. the irony is 16,000 acres of that same forest were destroyed but are on private land. the owner, sierra pacific industries, is in the process of salvaging the timber on their lands. they will be done by this summer and they'll begin reforesting from a portion of those proceeds. meanwhile, the public lands lay unattended. and let me say, within a couple of years, the difference is going to be dramatic. we will have fully salvaged and reforested private lands next neglected, overgrown public lands that are dry with scrub brush and just waiting for the next fire. the public management of our lands will be judged in comparison with the management

of the private lands. , d if we maintain current law we will have been held in the balance and be held wanting. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield as much time as she may consume to ms. delbene from washington. the chair: the gentlelady from washington is recognized. ms. delbene: i rise with great frustration and must oppose this bill in the current form. this is a merger of 10 public lands and natural resource bills all of which is unrelated to each other and which would ignore the best available science, compromise the stewardship of our public lands and completely disregard the bedrock environmental laws that served to protect our environment and cherished open spaces for decades. there is one part of the bill that i do support. buried in title 6 is the

lookout protection hargee heritage act which i co-authored. green mountain lookout, located in the glacier peak wilderness, was built in 1933 as a civilian corps project to detect fires and spot enemy aircraft during world war ii. the lookout is an important historic and unique part of the pacific northwest. and it's a popular destination for hikers and is listed on the national register for historic places. unfortunately, severe weather caused the green mountain lookout to fall into disrepair in 2001, and the u.s. forest service began taking steps to preserve the historic structure for future generations. however, an out-of-state group filed a lawsuit against the forest service for using machinery to conduct these repairs and unfortunately a u.s. district court ordered the forest service to remove the lookout. my bill would allow critical and routine maintnains while keeping this icon -- maintenance while keeping this

iconic structure intact. a number of historic and preservation groups support my bill to keep the green mountain lookout where it is. and the natural resources committee agrees. they passed this bill unanimously last year, and why wouldn't they? this bill is common sense, it saves us money because it would actually cost more to remove the lookout than to keep it where it is. there's absolutely no doubt in my mind if this bill had been brought up on its own by its own merits it would have passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. unfortunately, that's not what's happening here today. instead, this bill's gotten wrapped up with a series of very controversy and divisive bills. the green mountain lookout represents a significant piece of pacific northwest history and it needs to be protected for outdoor enthusiasts for years to come. it does not deserve to be wrapped up in a package of bills that we all know will be dead on arrival in the senate. the administration has voiced its support for the green

mountain lookout, keeping it where it is, while strongly opposing the rest of this bill. green mountain deserves a vote on its own and i'm extremely disappointed that my amendment to separate my bill from the rest of this package was denied a chance to be considered today. the way this piece of legislation was handled is emblem attic of the dysfunction that's so prevalent and so unnecessary in congress today. the people of washington state expects congress to make progress and me expect compromise, not partisan exercises that won't make it to the president's desk or achieve a meaningful result. i'm deeply disappointed that's where in bill is today, and i know that many of my constituents are as well. it's my hope that i'll be able to work with my colleagues from across the aisle to consider the green mountain lookout heritage protection act before it's too late. the need for immediate action is great because if the lookout is moved once, it's not going to move back. protecting our environment is critical to protecting the life we cherish. i cannot in good conscience

support this bill due to the many harmful measures that are included in this package. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield four minutes to the gentleman from idaho, mr. labrador, who is the author from one of the titles in the bill. the chair: the gentleman from idaho is recognized for four minutes. mr. labrador: i rise in support of this bill which i introduced h.r. 657, the grazing improvement act. i thank chairman hastings for recognizing the importance of this issue, and including it in h.r. 2954 for consideration today. livestock grazing is an important part of the rich ranching tradition in idaho and the united states. my home state of idaho produces some of the world's finest lamb and beef. food production is a major part of idaho's history and is an integral part of our cultural fabric and our economic security. these traditions are under

attack and we must preserve them for future generations. the financial security of ranchers depends upon the responsible stewardship of the land. unfortunately, the federal process to review the permits which allow them to produce food has become severely backlogged due to lawsuits aimed at eliminating live stock from public lands. the -- livestock from public lands. the local office cannot keep up with the pace of litigation and the endless environmental analysis. this diverts the already limited resources from these offices and leaves ranchers at risk from losing their grazing permits and jeopardizing their livelihoods. agriculture is a challenging way to make a living but producers choose this path because it is their passion and their way of life. several ranchers in my state of idaho said if they were to lose their grazing permit they would have to subdivide their land and further reduce their grazing areas. my bill, the grazing improvement act, would provide relief to these ranchers and to

ranchers throughout the country. it would number one, extend livestock grazing permit fathers 10 to 20 -- permit from 10 to 20 years to give them production and stability. it would codify existing appropriation language to put into statute annual riders, and it would encourage the respective secretaries of interior and agriculture to use exclusions to expedite permit processing. i believe that protecting our environment can be done in a manner that does not impede our economic growth. it is time that we improve our regulatory structure so we continue to prosper as a nation. we can no longer allow the federal government to maintain an enormous backlog in processing grazing permits. i thank the co-sponsors of this legislation, and i look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue. mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker.

h.r. 2954 is another attempt to weaken landmark environmental protections, dictate land management decisions, convey and dispose of federal land and rewrite a grazing policy. this chamber once again will spend a day debating bad policy put forth by the majority who seem to work tirelessly to undermine the process of the last century americans have made in conservation and environmental protection. undeterred by reality or a desire by the american people for a bipartisan legislation and compromise. furthermore, republicans have a long -- criticize the bills as an affront to regular order but now attempts to force this bill of bad policy proposals through the house that has no chance of passing the senate and let me quote from the statement from the white house that in opposition, the white house strongly opposes the bill and

the statement says, overall, h.r. 2954 contains a number of provisions that would undermine the responsible balance of interests and considerations and stewardship of the nation's lands and natural resources. it also goes on to state, provisions of the bill will disregard or reduce public engagement on a range of community interests, including natural resource protections and preclude agencies from considering less environmental detrimental alternatives. the statement cited the provisions in the bill that would waive all federal laws and consultation requirements and that would now initiate a timber sale without those, that would eliminate the balance limitation on off-road vehicle use within the cape hatteras recreational area and waive environmental reviews for grazing activities on federal land. the white house said it could support provisions that would restore the green mountain lookout in washington state and

modify conservation programs at the chesapeake bay watershed. overall, this legislation is going nowhere and has no chance of ever becoming law but here we are. furthermore, republicans have long criticized, even though we could be working together on a variety of public land issues that need to be addressed, like the re-authorization of the land, water conservation fund, we instead are debating a package of bills that fails to address significant issues that have bipartisan solutions. in fact, we can work together on some of the individual titles in this bill as stand-alones. we are not legislating. we are wasting valuable time and it's clear why the american people have such a negative view of congress. let me review quickly the substance of the package. title 1 would extinguish revisionary clause covering property in santa rosa island in florida.

the reversionary clause requires that the property in question be used for public purposes. since federal land is for the american people in its entirety. what's the reason for rescinding the clause? so the county of escambia can dredge and build a harbor that would cut off access to the rest of the island, most of which is managed as part of the gulf islands national seashore and a unit of the national park service. title 2 and 3 are much of the same federal land grants to be used for windfall profits at the expensive american people. title 3 goes further by waiving a number of laws, including the endangered species act, the national historic preservation act and the native american graves protection and repatriation act. title 4 would prevent the b.l.m. from carrying out its mission to manage public lands for multiple use until the agency creates a public database of all lands identified for disposal.

b.l.m. would be barred from all land acquisitions until such database is created. b.l.m. is currently -- currently uses a public process developed and implemented locally through resource management plans and approved by congress to identify parcel for acquisition or disposal. this measure would just add another extreme layer of bureaucracy. in 2007, the national park service placed modest limits on the use of off-highway vehicles on the beaches in order to limit the impacts on these species. the national park service was sued and a judge determined the limits were inadequate protection for thening dangered species. in arbitration, the parties including all stakeholders agreed on a plan for protection

while allowing managing off-highway vehicle access. this measure would require the seashore be managed under the first rule rather than the agreed-upon settlement. title 8 would provide environmental waiverers or transfers. if we are going to reform grazing permits, we should talk about those ranchers who would like to get out of the business and retire their permits and address the loss of grazing on federal lands. grazing fees have not changed since 1996 and significantly lower than in the past while state and private land owners generally seek market value for grazing. this measure is completely unbalanced and fails to address significant grazing issues. title like many other natural resource measures waives nepa additional review and administrative review,

completely disregarding the input of critical stakeholders such as the general public. in conclusion, this so-called lands package should be called the federal lands giveaway and destruction ofening dangered species. this undermines the management of our public lands and i urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones. mr. jones: the bill we are considering this morning includes a provision that would repeal excessive restrictions on public access to cape hatteras national seashore. even though the seashore is paid for by tax dollars, current relations have restricted access that is owned by the taxpayer.

the elected officials of the county have verified that the regulations have damaged the economy in the area which relies heavily on tourism. the last thing that we need in eastern north carolina and across the country is government stifling s stife -- job jobs and economic growth. this would lift access to the see seashore and reinstitute the national park service interim . nagement the interim strategy was backed by a biological opinion issued by the united states fish and wildlife service, which found at it would not jeopardize pipe and clover, sea turtles or

other species. the interim strategy was backed by 113-paged biological opinion issued by the united states fish and wildlife service which found found it not would not jeopardy ize species of concern. please support this legislation. let's protect the species that need to be protected, but let's also protect the rights of the taxpayer. this bim finds the balance between the two and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, and one of the ought thors of the title. the chair: -- authors of the title. mr. miller: this has a simple solution to property rights

issue in northwest florida. escambia, florida was given authority to transfer but could not issue title to that land. the county began leasing fees to individuals. in the years since 1947, pensacola beach has grown into a fine tourist destinations. they seek to allow local authorities to have taxes. local stakeholders including both boards of commissioners asked me to introduce this piece of legislation. mr. chairman, this is a fairness issue. it will allow lease holders the option of obtaining fee simple title to their property while also protecting current agreements governing conservation, preservation,

public access and recreation. additionally, the bill would ease management of the island by conveying certain land currently owned by escambia county to santa rosa county. it does not address property taxes but permits lease holders to obtain title to their property so lease holders and local governments can address any local tax issues that may arise in the future. contrary to a statement released by the white house yesterday, this bill does not remove any protections from santa rosa island but restates those protections that are currently in place with santa rosa county and escambia county that is critical to this barrier island. this bill affects the access or change the seashore nor negatively impact the mission of the national park service. contrary to what the ranking

member said, escambia county has absolutely no intention of dredging a bay. this is not going to happen. escambia county is protected on both sides of the land that they have currently now under lease by the national park service. so i urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense bill. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: it should be noted for the record that national park service provided a series of recommendations to make this rtion of the legislation workable and those were not considered during the process. mr. miller: the national park service if they said escambia county was doing this because they had the intent of doing some type of a dredging project,

they're absolutely incorrect. mr. grijalva: reclaiming my time. this land to be used for public purposes. and this is public land, not land to give away and as stated before, to be dredged and used for a harbor for potential windfall profit and completely disregards the conservation goals of the national seashore by hindering access. on one hand we talk about limited access to public lands and on the other hand we hinder access to those we see fit. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from utah subcommittee chairman and also author of one of the titles of the bill. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. let me begin by talking about some things that have been overstated on parks, especially the one that is my title.

my title does not stop the b.l.m. or anybody in the interior department from doing multiple use on lands. it has nothing to do with management. it says they can buy no new land until they are transparent and provide a data base that everyone can can accomplish. other statements made on the loor, some of them are ex -- exaggerated. let me talk about this bill as an entity. there is a common thread that runs through the bill which deals with public land with people from florida, to alaska and all stations in between. what we simply have found is that the federal government has large centralized bureaucracies that do our land management process that no longer meets the need of people but they hide behind rules, policies and regulations that makes it safe for them but don't help people which requires to be flexible

and think sometimes outside the box. the island in florida was given by florida to the government. the government gave it back to florida before i was born, and that is not some -- that's been a while. so the concept here is that the government does not own this land, they don't need it, don't use it, but still wish to control it. doesn't matter why, they still do and there is no purpose for it. it is ludicrous that the congressman from alaska must come down here and write a law to transfer three acres, three acres of land in anchorage back to the city so it can be used to benefit the people of anchorage, land that they don't own, need or use but still wish in some way to control it. the grazers in idaho who produce the stuff from which big macs nd whoppers are made only want

to be treated fairly and consistently so they can be successful in their trade. kayakers in wyoming want to recreate without being specifically prohibited by rules and regulations that would support a policy that we haven't -- we have found no longer is necessary and does not work. if these 10 bills were to pass, unfortunately, it doesn't solve all our problems because all these 10 bills do is show a tip of the iceberg of the problems that we face in dealing with land management when it comes from a large centralized bureaucracy and we no longer put our primary interests in helping people meet their need. mr. speaker, when the berlin wall fell down, the world realized that large centralized

bureaucracies of the communists would fail. eastern europe learned that, entrepreneurs learned that and found that companies take the lumbering products of the past. everyone realized that a large centralized bureaucratic program , except here in washington, d.c. where we try to build something that is going to be controlled here in the center of all wisdom, that is large, centralized and bureaucratic. it is mind boggling that the nation who defeated the soviet union with creativity and freedom decides to solve all problems and all management issues by going to a so far yet-style agency, program and concept. this bill is needed because it affects people and only the beginning of what we need to do to set it right and make sure

our highest priority is people and not rules and regulation. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: we heard people on the other side of the aisle make fun that the united states congress has to be involved in the conveyance of federal land. just as this nation defeated the soviet union and alluded to the fact that we have a so far yet-style government with regard to land management in this country, they need to take it up with article 4, congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all meaningful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the united states. so i'm sorry that the majority finds this burdensome, but the framers apparently felt that federal property was valuable and congress should play a role

in determining what to do with it. and let's be clear, we are talking about federal property, that is property owned by all americans. the land in country in escambia, florida, anchorage alaska, cape hatteras, yellowstone and grand teaton, the land impacted by this package is federal land owned by each and every american taxpayer. in the case of these land transfers, the federal government gave the land and gave it to a local community and the only requirement in most cases was that the land always be used for public purposes. as long as it's a park or a school or a fire station, it's yours, for free. what these bills do is end those public purpose requirements. the communities want to use these lands for private profit and close them to the public in