the chair: on this vote the yeas are 184, the nays are 223. motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, i ask for a roll call vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. waxman: i ask for a roll call vote on final passage. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the .s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 229, the nays are 183, the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. fudge: mr. speaker, under rule 9 i give notice of my intention to offer a question of the privileges of the house. the form of the resolution is as follows. whereas on march 5, 2014, during a hearing before the house committee on oversight and government reform, committee chairman darryl e. issa gave a statement and then posed 10 questions to former internal revenue service official lois learner who

stated she was invoking her fifth amendment right not to testify. whereas the committee's ranking member, representative elijah e. cummings, had his turn for can hes. whereas chairman issa then quickly adjourned the hearing and refused to allow him to make any statement or ask any questions. whereas ranking member cummings protested immediately, stating, mr. chairman, you cannot run a committee like this. you just cannot do this. this is -- we are better than that. as a country we are better than that, as a committee. whereas then chairman issa returned and allowed ranking member cummings to begin his statement but had it became clear mr. issa didn't want to hear what member cummings said, turned off ranking member cummings' microphone, repeatedly signaled to and he the hearing with his hand across his neck.

whereas ranking member cummings objected again stating, you cannot have a one-sided investigation. there is absolutely something wrong with that. whereas chairman issa made a statement of his own and posed questions during the hearing but refused to allow other members of the committee and in particular the ranking member who had sought recognition to make statements under the five-minute rule, in violation of house rule 9. -- 11. whereas chairman issa instructed the microphones to be turned off and adjourned the hearing without a vote or a unanimous consent agreement in violation of rule 16, because he did not want to permit ranking member cummings to speak. whereas chairman issa's abusive behavior on march 5 is part of a continuing pattern in which he has routinely excluded members of the committee from investigative meetings and has routinely provided information to the press before sharing it with committee members. whereas chairman issa has violated clause 1 of rule 23 of

the code of official conduct, which states, that a member, delegate, resident commissioner, officer or employee of the house shall behave at all times in a man that are shall reflect credibly on the house. now, therefore be be it resolved, that the house of representatives strongly condemns the offensive and disrespectful manner in which chairman darrell issa conducted the hearing of the house committee on oversight and government reform on march 5, 2014, during which he turned off the microphones of the ranking member while he was speaking and adjourned the hearing without a vote or unanimous consent agreement. . the speaker pro tempore: under route 9, a resolution offered from the floor by a member other the majority leader or the minority leader is a question of the privileges of the house has immediate precedence only at a time dellingd by the chair within two legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.

pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentlelady from ohio will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. that determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution. ms. fudge: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will post opponent further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later.

the speaker pro tempore: the house shall be in order. would members respectfully take their conversations from the loor, clear the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4152. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4152, a bill to provide for the costs of loan guarantees for ukraine. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers, and the gentlelady from new york, mrs. lowey, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and on the heir remarks consideration of h.r. 4152.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rogers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to bring to the floor 4152, a bill providing the authority for loan guarantees for ukraine. as we all sadly know, ukraine is facing an extraordinarily difficult time. as a valued partner and friend of the united states, our nation has a duty to provide the people of ukraine with help when they now need it most. this bill will provide some stability for the government and the people of ukraine as they navigate through these troubled waters. the legislation before us will allow funds to be used to guarantee loans for the government of the ukraine in support of secretary of state's $1 billion pledge this week. this bill does not appropriate

new funds but simply allows funds to be used from existing state department resources. ukraine's economy has been in a difficult position for years, but now the country faces, of course, real risks. russia has punished ukraine for leaning toward the west. and has suspended the assistance they planned to provide. this bill will not solve all of ukraine's problems, obviously, but it is an important first step that will allow the country to shore up its finances and begin to make its economy more efficient. with this legislation congress and the united states will show that we stand by those that oppose authoritarian rule. it will show that as a nation we will step up to help the people of ukraine not only with our words but with our deeds.

ukraine is facing an uncertain economic future, mr. speaker, but they are choosing the right path of democracy and reform. the american people will stand with the ukranian people as he they chart this new course, and today we'll take a first step to quickly respond to their present need. mr. speaker, this is a critically important bill. and one that should pass the house and the senate and be enacted into law without delay. i urge a yes vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman reserve his time? mr. rogers: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from reserves. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lowey: we must come together today on a bipartisan basis to support the people of

ukraine and take a stand against russia's aggression and a legal violation of ukraine's sovereign and territorial integrity. since last november the world has watched with growing alarm as the hopes and democratic aspirations of the ukranian people were met with haven't crackdowns against activists, harassment of journalists, restrictive legislation, limiting basic democratic freedoms. the bloody images from the city square and rising death tolls are horrific. last month the ukranian parliament, the democratically elected institution, responsibly exercised its mandate, took action on behalf of the people of ukraine. within days hope returned as the parliament out ofed the reckless and dangerous -- ousted the

reckless and dangerous former president. began discussions with the i.m.f. on a financial support package, and formed a transitional government with early elections scheduled for may. but russia, through its dangerous and illegal military occupation of crimea, has imperiled this progress and unnecessarily escalated this crisis. russia has violated international law and its own treaty obligations with the ukraine. ukraine now teeters on the brink of disaster and blood shed. and i urgently call upon president putin to work with kiev and the international community to de-escalate the situation immediately. now is the time for us to support the people of ukraine. i strongly support president

obama's comprehensive aid package to support ukraine which includes $1 billion in loan guarantees, technical assistance on trade, and recovery of stolen assets. the i.m.f. is working with the transitional government in kiev and is instrumental in stabilizing the ukranian economy. this crisis illustrates the importance of the i.m.f. to our national and global security interests. and i hope the final assistance package we enact for ukraine will include support for the i.m.f. in addition, i urge my colleagues in congress to support the i.m.f. quota reforms in the president's budget request which would expand the i.m.f.'s capacity to respond to these kinds of crises and maintain u.s. leadership. instead of continuing to pursue

shortsighted isolationist attacks on the i.m.f. in the meantime, however, we should not let the perfect stand as the enemy of the good. in the bipartisan spirit of this bill, i urge my colleagues to vote yes to stand beside the people of ukraine in their hour of darkness. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady yields back or does she reserve her time? mrs. lowey: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the committee's chairman of the state and foreign operations subcommittee, ms. granger from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. granger: thank you, mr. speaker. . rise in support of h.r. 4152 the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. granger: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 4152 and

strongly support this bipartisan legislation before us today to provide economic assistance to ukraine during her hour of need. this loan guarantee will help stabilize the ukranian economy during a time of political transition and when this country's sovereignty is being tested by russia. now more than ever the united states needs to demonstrate bold leadership and stand up for those who choose democracy over tyranny. this bills to not mean the end of ukraine's serious challenges, but it's an important first step that will allow the government to begin to repair the economic damage caused by the former leadership and will help bring stability back to the nation that values freedom. this legislation also sends a clear signal to ukraine and the world that the united states stands by our friends. ukranian people want democracy, justice, reform, and peace. the american people will stand with ukraine as they chart a new course forward.

i want to thank chairman rogers and ranking member lowey for their immediate bipartisan response to this crisis in the ukraine. mr. speaker, this is an important legislation at a very important time. i urge my colleagues to vote yes so we can send this bill to the president's desk for his signature without delay. i thank you, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to mr. engel from new york, the ranking member of the foreign affairs committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. i thank my friend, the gentlewoman from new york, for yielding me this time.

and, mr. speaker, the ranking member of the foreign affairs committee, i rise in strong support of h.r. 4152, legislation that would provide the government of ukraine with urgently needed funds to address pressing needs at a critical moment. the ukranian people bravely confronted a brutal and corrupt regime and stood up for democracy and justice. they need our help now. this bill is a first step in answering their call. the bill authorizes the united states to provide repayment guarantees for bonds the ukranian government plans to issue to raise cash. these guarantees will make it easier for ukraine to sell the bonds at the lowest possible price and longest term. our guarantees would be backed up by reserves using existing appropriated funds that the congress provided for exactly this type of emergency. this bill is the initial contribution to sustaining ukraine's new government as it seeks to restore stability and return ukraine to political and economic health. it is part of a larger financial

commitment from the e.u. and other states and will also help ukraine's efforts to reach agreement with the i.m.f. and to implement needed reforms. without this support ukraine's progress could fall in the face of unrelenting pressure from russia which has illegally occupied the crimea, encourages separatism, and substantial leverage on the ukraineon economy. our country has a long history of answering the call of people who have chosen freedom and democratcy. ukraine is now making that call as its people are seeking to defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity and build a more democratic, prosperous, and just future for themselves and their contry. we must answer. this bill is our first step. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 4152. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the defense subcommittee on appropriations, mr. frelinghuysen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise in strong

support of this legislation, provide critical loan guarantees to ukraine as it struggles against russia oppression. a large and proud ukranian community has been part of my congressional district for well over a century. initially ukranians came to new jersey in waves of immigration because of persecution under the czars, and then later after the soviet union crushed an independent ukraine in the 1920's. yes, from the days of my youth i have come to understand the ukranians have always cherished freedom of almost more than any descendants of any other nations, peoples, and cultures, and even after living in america for decades, they remain devoted to their homeland, to independence. . fiercely proud of their independent nation, my constituents are now watching history repeat itself as vladimir putin occupies ukraine and seems to be threatening the eastern and southern parts. the people of ukraine have the right and obligation to decide what they feel is best for

their nation. either closer ties to the e.u., the european community and the west, or shift back to russia. but that is their choice. and that cannot be decided by a force of arms. mr. chairman and my colleagues, i am pleased that the president has proposed and the house will soon approve these loan guarantees for ukraine. but this measure is not enough. the ukrainian people need strong leadership from the united states. this bill sends the right message, sends the needed loan guarantees and i urge strong support for its passage and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. >> i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, a member of the foreign operations subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. schiff: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. mr. speaker, i stand today with the people of ukraine and in strong support of this

legislation. which will provide the administration with additional and immediate flexibility to assist ukraine and i look forward to working with the gentleman from kentucky and my good friend from new york on further ways to assist ukraine in the appropriations process. but this effort cannot be just about helping ukraine. it must also be about reversing russian aggression and curbing vladimir putin's policies. president obama's action this morning to cut off access to assets and place travel restrictions on those involved in the violation of ukraine's sovereignty is a positive first step. but the pressure must be increased in the coming days if russia fails to reverse course. i support a slate of economic sanctions led by the united states and europe to isolate russia's economy and its leadership. so that putin is made to understand that his violation of international law and the sovereignty of his neighbors will not be tolerated. the collapse of the soviet union was one of the seminal events of the 20th century.

the cold war is over. territorial aggression by russia will not resurrect its empire. but only diminish its standing in the world and the future of its people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of our committee, mr. harris of maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. harris: mr. chairman, thank you for yielding me time to speak on this bill before us. mr. speaker, the situation in the ukraine is important to all of us, but for me it has a personal aspect. my mother, now 90 years old, escaped from the ukraine and the communists after world war ii. she understood firsthand how josef stalin suppressed freedoms and liberties in the ukraine. much as mr. putin desires to do likewise now. we're faced with a situation in which the new government of ukraine is being threatened with russian expansion into its

sovereign territories. it is as if the budapest agreement of 1994, which involved both russia and the united states, had not guaranteed the ukraine safe borders from invasion. it is as if the cold war never ended. and perhaps to mr. putin and other russian nationalists, it never has. the ukraine situated between russia and the rest of you europe is of obvious strategic and economic importance, not only to russia, but to the united states and western europe. that's why this bill is so important. it allows the ukraine to be allowed access to e.s.f. funding. the e.s.f. established to, quote, provide assistance to allies and countries in the transition to democracy. mr. speaker, that's exactly the situation the ukraine finds itself today. in need of our help to advance democracy and resist the invasion, economically and physically, from russia, attempting to relitigate the

cold war. we can't let that happen. they desperately need these loan guarantees. for the sake of freedom, democracy and international justice, i urge passage of this bipartisan effort to help our friends in the ukraine. thank you, mr. speaker, and, mr. chairman, for yielding the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, the ranking member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. levin: thank you for yielding. i rise in fervent support of this legislation. this bill comes at a clearly crucial time. the people of ukraine need to be able to preserve their nation. we need to help. the people of ukraine fought for their long-desired independence. we need to help them keep it. in my capacity as co-chair of the congressional ukrainian

caucus, i've had many chances to dialogue with the ukrainian american community and members of the current ukrainian parliament. they have outlined in detail their determination to maintain against in one ukraine russian aggression and any other force. the president has taken strong steps to support that endeavor. we today should join together in unison with the president and with, i believe, the overwhelming majority of the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. lamborn: i thank the chairman. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 4152, which provides loan guarantees for

ukraine. i am deeply concerned about the crisis in ukraine. vladimir putin is clearly the aggressor, but the united states and our europe allies have not done enough to support freedom, self-determination and human rights in ukraine. when america does not provide strong and reliable leadership, bad things are more likely to happen. unfortunately president obama's foreign policy of leading from behind is a failure. even the liberal "the washington post" this week said that president obama's foreign policy is based on fantasy. we in congress must do all we can to restore missing american leadership on foreign policy and that starts with ukraine. the people of ukraine should not be pawns in vladimir putin's hands. we must stand with our european and our other allies and do all we can to support freedom, self-determination and human rights in ukraine. i ask my colleagues to support h.r. 4152. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield

back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, the minority whip of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i want to thank chairman rogers and ranking member lowey for bringing this bill to the floor in a very timely fashion. mr. speaker, congress is coming together today to support loan guarantee authority for ukraine that will be instrumental in stabilizing its economy and showing ukraine's people that the united states stands with them. i view this as a first step in what hopefully will be a series of actions to support the people of ukraine, including i.m.f. ramification authority. i also support, mr. speaker, president obama's action this morning to impose sanctions against russian and other officials who are exacerbating

the crisis and put in place visa restrictions. mr. chairman, i chaired the commission on security and cooperation in europe from 1985 to 1995. the final act says that borders cannot be changed other than by political means. the russians need to comply with that admonition. i commend the administration's efforts to broker a diplomatic process that can resolve this dangerous situation in ukraine. the steps taken today are integral to that effort. we will stand hopefully as one in this congress on behalf of this bill. russia has violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine in its unlawful and unwarranted military occupation of areas and its threats against the government in kiev. i do not purport to say this is a simple situation that we confront. i would commend my colleagues

an article by henry kissinger in today's "the washington post," the complexity of this situation is real but the actions of the russians is an unacceptable response. and we must take action. as a former chairman of the commission during the a winning days of the cold war, i've -- wanning days of the cold war, 've seen firsthand the situation. may i have 10 additional seconds? there are deep linguistic and political divisions within ukraine. frankly, that is true of many other countries as well. democracy by its nature provides an avenue to overcome those differences through peaceful cooperation and dialogue. that is what must prevail. must prevail in ukraine and what must guide all parties forward.

not force, not intimidation and not separatism. the united states remains committed, mr. speaker, to standing with all the people of ukraine as they seek the better future they deserve. and therefore i urge my colleagues to overwhelmingly support this resolution and again thank mr. rogers and mrs. lowey for bringing this to the floor so quickly and decisively and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, a member of the rules committee and the ranking member of the helsinki commission. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mrs. lowey. i rise in very strong support of this legislation which is a beginning step in which i hope we will follow with all that we can to assist those ukrainians

who are courageous and forward-leaning, to be about the business of determining their own fate. i had the good fortune of being the election monitor immediately after the orange revolution and i spent a lot of time talking to the people there. and what i learned, if nothing more, is that they do have the courage of their convictions. what i want us to do and what i beg my colleagues that speak about this matter to understand is that it is extremely complex. it's nothing that you can put on a bumper sticker and it is unfair to president obama for people to take to this floor and allow that he is acting -- leading from behind, as i just heard a member say. what that member needs to understand is that it is not easy to make a determination in these kinds of matters, whereas putin is a dictator, obama is

in a democracy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: continues to reserve. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i am very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from ohio, ms. kaptur, ranking member of the energy and water subcommittee on appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for two minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank the ranking member of the full committee, mrs. lowey, for yielding me this time. and i'm very proud of the appropriations committee at this moment for passing the first bill, bringing the first bill to the floor that stands with freedom lovers in ukraine and around our world. we know a threat to liberty anywhere is a threat to liberty everywhere. and i rise in heartfelt support of this loan guarantee legislation to allow ukraine time to stabilize and secure its liberty. this money will be repaid and i

commend the bipartisan leadership of this house in acting with dispatch. president obama and secretary kerry have been working overtime to exert every effort to bring the free world together in their mutual self-interest and that interest is liberty. there are some violations of international law and treaties that are so abhorrent they demand the strongest action. russia's invasion of its undefended neighbor ukraine cannot be allowed to stand. the now 20-year-old budapest memorandum on security assistance signed in 1994 by the united states, russia, the united kingdom and ukraine, set the path for ukraine to give up thousands of nuclear weapons. and she remains undefended because of it. the budapest accords welcomed the ac session of ukraine to the treaty of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons as a nonnuclear weapons state. so her inability to defend

herself against such a powerful neighbor is very clear. in a joint statement leaders from canada, france, germany , italy, japan and the united kingdom and our country said, we join together to condemn the russian federation's clear violations of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine in contra invention of russia's obligations under its u.n. charter and the 1997 agreement with ukraine. this diverse group of nations coming together further ilvates the isolation russia is certain to face and the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for an additional three minutes. . ms. kaptur kleppe i thank the gentlelady. this diverse group of nations coming together further illustrates the isolation russia will certain face if she does not rehadn't and fall back from the aggressive push into crimea. you know, in summarizing my remarks today, let me place on the record from the last century

no place in the world suffered more than the land of ukraine. no place had more people starved, murdered, brutally beaten, buried alive, imprisoned, into forced labor including some of my ancestors. i know having traveled to ukraine how much the people of that great country want liberty. this is a moment that history will record in this new century of the 21 isst. let us give her a -- 21st. let us give her a bit of a lift to get her over this critical period she's facing. i also wish to place into the record information about what the organization for security and cooperation has done in ukraine to date. i will tell the body today that journalists are not being allowed to report from crimea. they are being beaten by the government of russia.

from the reports we are getting on the ground. russia is moving the world backwards not forwards. this bill is an important step in helping ukraine to transition as we join with countries from throughout the world to condemn the violation of ukraine's sovereign borders and give her the courage to stand up to those who would take her liberty away. this will be the first time in modern history that that country has a chance to become the truly borderland great nation that she is meant to be, reaching west and north and east and south. i thank the gentlelady for yielding me this time and i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation which is a loan guarantee to help lift that country over this most trying time and difficult crisis in its recent history. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. her unanimous consent request to

include statements in the record s without objection. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: might i inquire of the time remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 11 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlelady from new york has four minutes remaining. mr. rogers: might i inquire of my colleague if she has further speakers? mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, it doesn't seem to me that we have additional speakers. we may have an additional speaker on the way. we may have one additional speaker on the way. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from kentucky reserve. mr. rogers: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentlelady from new york has four minutes remaining. mrs. lowey: as we wait for the

additional speaker, i want to thank the chairman again and i think it is very important that we have been able to act so expeditiously in a bipartisan way to send a very strong message to russia and to the people of ecrane -- ukraine. the people of ukraine as was explained so eloquently by my colleague, ms. kaptur, who has been there many times, are standing up for freedom. there are many challenges they have. the challenge of adequate housing. the challenge of adequate food. the challenge of strengthening economy. and yet the fact that we must respond as our great democracy to a situation that has been

imposed by putin, it is very, very troubling when there are so many real issues to which our resources can be extended. my grandparents came from kiev, long time ago. at the turn of the century. pogrums.ped from the they escaped from the lack of democracy, and the impact of intolerance and brutality that existed there. so when you look back upon these years, and you look at the struggles that the people have n cured, to see the unnecessary utality that has occurred is unacceptable. so, mr. chairman, again, i want to thank you that we are working

together in a bipartisan way to stand up for freedom, to stand up for democracy, to stand up for the people who are seeking a good future for their families. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. rogers: would the gentlelady yield. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady yield back her time? mrs. lowey: i yield back the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i want to thank the gentlelady for co-sponsoring this legislation and working in a bipartisan fashion to be sure that it's brought up in the quickest possible manner. which this is. and like you and the others who have spoken, i'm proud of our committee or facting expeditiously -- for acting expeditiously and doing the right thing at the right time. it's really a sad, sad, sad, sad state of affairs that we find in ukraine. i remember going there many

years before when it was still a part of the soviet union, under communist rule. and visiting the wonderful church where the eastern orthodox church was born. in kiev. and going through the labrinyth, the catacombs, and today to realize that that peaceful, nderful place, the home of christianity, really, in that part of the world, is being torn .part by people of no faith is doubling troubling -- is doubly troubling. i want to thank the gentlelady for helping us with this bill. mr. speaker, i have no further requests for time and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time of the the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4152. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are -- the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the motion will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: flops the gentleman from virginia rise. -- for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise. mr. goodlatte: 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. 2641.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 501 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2641. the chair appoints the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2641 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide for improved coordination of agency actions in the preparation and adoption of environmental documents for permitting determinations, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time of the the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: 5 1/2 years after the financial crisis struck in 2008, america remains in a jobs

recession. millions of americans would call it a jobs depression. the rapid act responds to america's urgent need for new jobs with critical help. according to testimony received by the regulatory reform subcommittee, the rapid act would help to stimulate the creation of three million jobs. in an economy in which the labor force participation rate has reached record lows, there is little more urgent jobs legislation that congress could pass than the rapid act. the jobs the rapid act would create, moreover, are high wage, highly skilled construction jobs. this is not just sure-fire legislation to create millions of jobs. it is sure-fire legislation to create higher wanges for hard-working americans. why do we need legislation to create these jobs? the reason is simple. since before the financial crisis began and up to this day, the federal government's outdated and overly burdensome environmental review process has kept legions of jobs and workers

waiting too long for approval from federal bureaucrats. the united states now ranks a dismal 34th in the world in the procedures, time, and costs needed to obtain governmental approval of new construction permits. the heart of the problem lies in the delay of the completion of renews under the national environmental policy act, commonly known as nepa. when nepa was first implemented, neither congress nor the executive branch contemplated that the nepa process would bog down responsible federal permitting. on the contrary when congress debated the issue it falked about time frames like 90 days to complete review. in 1981 the council on environmental quality, or c.e.q., thought all review could be done in a year. a recent study, however, found that the average length of time to complete just one part of the process, the preparation of an environmental impact statement,

was 3.4 years and growing. examples abound of cases in which it takes far longer. the port of savannah, georgia, for example has seen a potential dredging project mired in review for over 13 years with no end to review in sight. cape wind, a significant wind energy project in massachusetts took 12 years to reach the end of review. making matters worse, many he projects that finally emerge from the administrative review process only become bogged down again in lengthy litigation challenging agency's permitting desuggestions. clearly the system needs to be reformed. vice president biden summed it up dramatically during a visit to the savannah port in 2013 when he said, what are we doing? we are arguing about whether or not to deepen this port. it's time we get moving. i'm sick of this. folks, this isn't a partisan issue, it's an economic issue. end quote. how do we get moving?

the key is to find the right balance between economic progress and the proper level of analysis. the rapid act strikes this balance. it does not force agencies to approve or deny any projects. it simply ensures that the process agencies use to make permitting decisions and the timeline for subsequent litigation are transparent, logical, and efficient. to do that, the rapid act draws upon established definitions and consnts from exusting nepa regulations. it also draws upon commonsense suggestions from across the political spectrum, including from the president's jobs council and the administration's council on environmental quality. most significantly, the rapid act sets hard deadlines, including an 18-month maximum deadline, for an environmental assessment and a 36-month maximum deadline for an environmental impact statement. it cracks down on prolonged lawsuits by establishing a

180-day statute of limitations for lawsuits challenging permitting decisions and limiting claims to those presented during the permit's public notice and comment process. and it consolidates who manages the process by empowering lead agencies to manage environmental reviews efficiently from start to finish to avoid waste and duplication of effort among bureaucratic agencies. in many respects, the bill is modeled on the permit streamlining sections of congress' safetea-lu and map 21 transportation legislation, which commanded bipartisan support. this legislation has cut the time for completing an environmental impact statement nearly in half. president obama himself moreover strongly supports permit stream lining consistent with the recommendations of his jobs council. in his 2014 state of the union address, the president expressed his desire to slash

bureaucracy and stream line the permitting process for key projects so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible. congress should transform the president's rhetoric into action and enact this legislation to stream line permitting on all federally funded and federally permitted construction projects. i want to thank the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino, for his leadership on this issue, and i urge all of my colleagues to support this critical legislation and cut down the time it takes america's workers to see a real jobs recovery and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 2641, the so-called responsibility and professionally invigorating development act of 2013.

contrary to the bill's short title, h.r. 2641 would result in confusion and delay in the review and permitting process for certain construction projects. most importantly it will pose serious threats to public health and safety. by carving out a separate environmental review process for construction projects, which this bill doesn't even define by the way, this bill would effectively create two different environmental review processes for the same project. one that applies to the construction phase of the project, whatever that means under the bill, and one that applies to every other phase of the project. for instance, the bill's requirements would require or would apply to building a nuclear reactor but not to decommissioning the reactor or transporting or storing the

reactor's spent fuel after it's been decommissioned. worse yet, this measure could jeopardize public health and safety by prioritizing project approval over meaningful analysis. it does this by restricting the opportunity for meaningful public participation and imposes deadlines that may be unrealistic under certain circumstances. doing so, h.r. 2641 forecloses potentially critical input from federal, state and local agencies and other interested parties for construction projects that are federally funded or that require federal approval. this is why i have offered an amendment ensuring that the public's right to participate in the review process is not cut off by this measure. and if an agency fails to meet the unrealistic deadlines andated by h.r. 2641, the bill

would automatically green light a project, regardless of whether the agency has thoroughly reviewed the project's risks. these failings of the bill, along with many others, explain why the president's council on environmental quality and more than 20 respected environmental groups vigorously oppose this bill and it's also the reason why yesterday the administration issued a statement of administration , licy whereby the president in noting that these new rules would actually cause more onfusion, the recommendation to him would be that the bill if passed by this house and the senate and once it arrives at his desk he would be advised to

veto it. last but not least, h.r. 2641 fails to address the real problem with construction projects. the rapid act is clearly intended to apply to infrastructure projects. and yet this bill does nothing to address the actual causes of construction delays, which is the lack of funding, in so far as the savannah river port dredging is concerned, the corps of engineers approved that project back in 2012. but of course since 2012, in addition to shutting down the government for 16 days, we have been cutting -- we have been cutting funds for these kinds of projects. and so today for politicians to clamor for a spotlight and then denounce the lack of funding for these very important and

crucial projects for the nation's economic well-being, it's really ridiculous that we would stand here and act like it's regulations that are holding things back. no, it's the money. for example, there is currently a $60 billion backlog projects authorized under the water resources act. $60 billion. although every single one of these projects was successfully approved, has been successfully approved using existing review procedures under the agency, none of these projects has begun construction. why? because the most recent appropriations for the corps' construction budget was only $1.2 billion. that's $60 billion in projects, mr. speaker, in approved projects that would improve the

nation's infrastructure had they not been delayed. clearing this backlog would force a multiplier in creating jobs or would be a force multiplier in creating jobs, spurring innovation and growing the economy. that's a jobs bill, mr. speaker . what's more, the obama administration is doing everything that it can to improve the performance of federal permitting and review of infrastructural projects. in march, 2012, the administration issued executive order 13604 to modernize the federal infrastructure permitting process and cut in half the time line for approving infrastructure projects. this order incentivized better outcomes for communities and the environment while cutting red tape. since implementing this order,

agencies have expedited permits for over 50 major projects. in one instance, agencies shavinged up to three years off the -- shaved up to three years off the time line of the bridge replacement project in new york . that's a multibillion-dollar project that's putting americanings back to work -- americans back to work. since then, the president issued another memorandum in june, 2013, further directing federal agencies to develop and integrated interagency preapplication process for significant offshore electric transmission projects requiring federal approval. mr. speaker, my republican colleagues often claim to want to get americans back to work. so i have to ask, why do we need legislation that does not create a single job, a bill that will pick winners and losers, and a bill that makes the process less clear and less

protective of public health and safety? why do we need that legislation? why must we continue to waste this chamber's precious time on bills that do nothing? mr. speaker, we should work together to address the real causes for delay in the nepa process, instead of debating this dangerous bill. in light of the bill's many serious flaws, i urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds to say to the gentleman that the provisions on the projects that he mentioned are exactly why we need this legislation. because this legislation incorporates those ideas which started by the way in this house with the work of the transportation committee in the transportation bills and now

needs to be codifyified and put into law so it can be -- cotified and put into law so it can be made available in that project and every probably in which the federal government has a regulatory role. so, at this time it is my pleasure to yield four minutes to the chairman of the regulatory reform subcommittee, the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for four minutes. mr. bachus: i thank the chairman. one thing that i think we all, republicans and democrats, agree on is that you can't have a world-class economy with a third-world infrastructure. and in many cases that's what we have today. putting money into highways, bridges and other infrastructure improvements is one of the best investments that the federal government can

make. the gentleman from georgia said that. it's a great investment. but when we put the money in for the projects, we need to get those projects under way. each infrastructure project in our country creates jobs. high-paying jobs. they modernize our transportation system and not only does it create jobs, it increases fuel efficiency. because it increases velocity. it saves fuel, which is good for our economy, and makes us less dependent on foreign oil. it improves safety. that not only reduces cost, but it saves lives. unfortunately there's a major in block out there completing all of the work that we desperately need to do.

d that is the excruciatingly slow process imposed by washington on the permitting of new construction projects. now, that's where i think the gentleman from georgia and i disgrea. he says there's not a problem -- disagree. he says there's not a problem. let me quote president obama. quote, one of the problems we've had in the past is that sometimes it takes too long to get projects off the ground. that's not me, that's president obama. there are all of these permits and red tape and planning and this and that and some of it's important to do, but we could do it faster. that's the essence of this bill. we can do it faster. we both acknowledge it creates jobs. we both acknowledge it helps our economy. our fuel efficiency. it saves lives. we can do that faster. that means less fuel wasted,

more time wasted -- i mean, less time wasted, jobs created and, boy, we need those jobs now. let me tell you how difficult it is on projects. the northern beltline, part of the loop around birmingham, first added to the national highway system in 1995. only this month, 19 years later, did we commence that project. when a federal judge finally said a, enough is enough. enough delays -- said, enough is enough. enough delays, enough court challenges, enough road blocks. and ordered the project to begin. during that period of time there were four environmental studies done and, look, our tax dollars are limited. four environmental studies that had to be redone from start to finish because they became too old. they became outdated.

that's money that's wasted. wasted. we can't afford to waste money or time or lives in making this economy better and creating jobs. i will in just a minute. if i have time left. i'd be glad to. 1998 e, this project in began to receive authorization and funding but it just started this month. these were people, constituents, not only those people living in central and north alabama whose commute was longer, people traveling through alabama. and i will submit the remainder of my remarks. i want to thank the gentleman from pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. bachus: thank you. i want to thank the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino, for introducing this

legislation. it will reduce the time it takes to review new construction projects and ensure that the permitting process is not endlessly held up in court. and that's what this judge said in the case of the northern beltline. he said, this has been before the courts and, look, our courts, it takes people sometimes years to get their case to court. we don't need these unnecessary delays, legal expenses and added environmental expenses. and i thank the gentleman. . 've done these same things why all of a sudden are we saying this is a bad thing, when in a bipartisan way earlier we've approved very similar provisions, why in this congress things that used to be bipartisan are we suddenly out here calling dangerous? i don't understand that. i don't think the american people understand this

dysfunction. i thank the judiciary committee, its members, chairman goodlatte, and, again, mr. marino, thank you. this was too late for the people along the northern beltline, but it won't be too late for the next. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. . mr. johnson: i'd have to point out to my friend from alabama that you cannot do construction pro >> without federal funding. if there's no funding that has been appropriated, then the projects don't get done and that's what we've had here in this congress. currently $60 billion backlog of projects authorized under the water resources development act. each and every one of those projects had great importance. all of the regulatory work has been done. the projects are cleared, and we simply do not fund them here

in this congress because this ongress does not want it to be said by the american people that the current administration is responsible for an economic turnaround, and despied their best efforts and most insistent efforts, the economy continues to move along favorably though not at the rate that we need it to. so we really need to have legislation that we are considering and debating on this floor that will create jobs and economic prosperity for americans as opposed to these anti-regulatory bills that come forth now. looks like about five or six every week are coming by. plus, we had to pepper in a dose of the repeal of the affordable care act every once in a while.

50 times we've done that. not one job created. that's the problem that we have. with that said, i will yield back -- or i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman reserves the balance of his time -- the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from ennsylvania. mr. marino: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. marino: mr. speaker, the american historical record has always been the worse the recession the stronger the recovery. however, although the national bureau of economic research states, the recession ended five years ago. we could agree the recovery has been anything but strong. facts are something this administration fights with

vehement opposition. nevertheless, the simple fact is this is the slowest recovery our country has witnessed since the truman presidency. after the deep recession that gan in december of 2007, employment has risen sluggishly at best and has risen much more slowly than in the other recoveries, for certain. according to the c.b.o., employment at the end of 2013 was six million jobs short of where it would be if the unemployment rate had returned to its prerecession level. this is why i've introduced h.r. 2641, the responsibly and professionally invigorating development act of 2013, also known as the rapid act. the rapid act creates a streamlined federal environmental review and permitting process that

establishes transparency and certainty for job creators. furthermore, this bill would , ower lead agencies -- note lead agencies to manage environmental reviews from start to finish as well as establish time constraints on the review process and period in which a claim can be filed. a recent study by the u.s. chamber of commerce identified 351 state-level project that if approved for construction could ave created 1.9 million jobs annually during the projected seven years of construction. while these numbers help put the issue of -- in perspective, i don't need a study to know that bureaucracy is holding up projects and preventing job growth. i see it every day in my

district. for example, one of my constituents, p.p.l. corporation, filed an application with the u.s. nuclear regulatory commission, the n.r.c., for a license to build and operate a state-of-the-art nuclear plant near the company's existing two units power plant. the plant would produce 1,600 megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than one million homes. p.p.l. predicted this one project would create 400 construction jobs and 400 permanent jobs. in addition, early estimates by p.p.l. were that the project would cost $15 billion to instruct. these estimates included -- to construct. these estimates included escalation, financing cost, fuel and contingencies and

reserves. imagine for a moment, if you will, the positive impact of a $15 billion investment in my district in pennsylvania, the 10th congressional district. however, washington bureaucrats have prevented this project from creating jobs and it has yet to break ground. six years after the application was first filed in 2008, six years, the nuclear regulatory commission claims they are still reviewing the company's quest for combined operating license. if these individuals that are reviewing this after six years were working in private industry, they'd been fired in the first year. in fact, p.p.l. says realistically, a final decision on the project is still several years away. this is ridiculous.

let me be clear. the national environmental policy act of 1969 serves worthy goals which should be preserved. i live out in the country. i get my water from a well. i love to see the deer and the bear come through my land. i raised my children there. if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think that i would do anything to hurt my children, whether it's water or air or the environment in general, they really should think again. federal agencies should be able to evaluate new projects to ensure that they don't pose a threat to the environment or to the public. however, over time nepa regulations have turned into an outdated, burdensome and convoluted federal permitting process that must be reined in. the good news is that a bipartisan consensus exists on the need to reform the

permitting process. in fact, the administration, the president's council on jobs and competitiveness, legislation adopted by a strong bipartisan majority in the 109th and 112th congresses all recognized that an overly burdensome and lengthy environmental review and permitting process undermines economic growth. the time for these reforms is now because americans are ready to get back to work. the rapid act of 2013 will remove the red tape and allow job creators to take projects off the drawing board and onto the work site. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense reform, and i also would like unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter that i received from the chamber of commerce, the u.s. chamber of

commerce dated march 5, 2014, with over 70 names of large, small and medium-sized businesses who support this legislation. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's unanimous consent request is covered under leave and he reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. my friend and colleague from pennsylvania pointed out in the rules committee last night that it was the approval process that was holding up the dredging project for the port of savannah. just yesterday, the "atlanta journal constitution" refuted this claim. in reality, this project and countless others like it is held up by a lack of funding. to quote the article, in the old days a congress that didn't agree with white house priorities simply loaded its own projects into the budget in

a bit of horse trading, but republicans, particularly in the house, have placed such bargaining out of bounds. it's a self-imposed restrictions on their own influence. because, under the house rules, this is an earmark, the savannah river port dredging, would be an earmark. and for us to place something in the budget which is not in the budget already, that's not allowed. that's a quote from my colleague, representative kingston. because it's an earmark, in other words, congress or its representatives would be barred by our own rules from placing something in the budget, a funding for a project. and it's unfortunate that my colleagues from georgia on the

other side of the aisle aided and abetted by their colleagues on the other side of the aisle from across the country can't eem to -- can't seem to adjust their actions, their legislative actions to suit the people that they represent. now, this savannah river port dredging is very important to georgia's economy. it is the most important economic development project on the table, and it's ready to , but because the tea party the bond between these legislators and the big bad tea party has them afraid to do what's in the best interest of their states and that's a shame. having said that, i will now

yield to sheila jackson lee, my colleague from texas, for five minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the manager, my friend, congressman johnson, and mr. marino, all of them, our colleagues on the floor of the house and as well as on the judiciary committee. i rise to accept the fact that there are opportunities for discussion on streamlining and effectively expediting in a collaborative way processees in the federal government to continue to move forward the federal government as it is responsible to the american people. unfortunately, i believe we are not at that place today with h.r. 2641. and let me share with you -- because president obama has

been cited repeatedly, and i believe his words at that time and today are accurate. no one would want the federal government to stall the effective moving forward of projects. i might ask my colleagues, however, if they would join me in fully funding infrastructure, rebuilding this country, which we have not been able to do for almost five years. but the administration, by reading the statement of administration policy, strongly rejects the legislation's premise, that's h.r. 2641, that public input and responsible agency decisionmaking under current law hinders job creation. the administration believes that h.r. 2641, if enacted, would lead to among -- to more confusion and delay, limit public participation in the permitting process, and ultimately hamper economic growth. there lies, mr. chairman, the undercurrent of the -- or the

underpinnings of the president's veto threat. where is this bill? i'd ask unanimous consent the appropriate time to place in the record the administrative statement. the chair: the gentlelady's request is covered under general leave. ms. jackson lee: so what are we talking about with this legislation? one, this legislation would narrow the scope of judicial review. in addition, this legislation would narrow the review by one federal agency who would allegedly coordinate other federal and state agencies. let me tell you what the problem is with that, mr. chairman. that is each of the agencies have their own extra expertise and so you are snuffing their expertise. you are quashing their expertise. you're forcing one agency be the giant unser of all the other agencies which have a responsibility to their constituency and to the american people. and then you have a set of circumstances that suggest, as my amendment will hope to correct, is that you're going to deem up.

if you don't get the job done, we're going to deem you up, beam you up. we are just going to assume that everything has been done and you can go forward. doesn't matter whether you trample on farmland in texas, whether or not you are in essence leveling suburban homes in pennsylvania or whether or not you are in the mountains of georgia and cause havoc. . i will make the argument that this is not an act that is answering the question, it is a solution searching for a problem. and frankly the argument made by many of us is a principle core that's the unjustified delay are inadequate agency resources and the bush administration noted that neep was not a cause for -- nepa was not a cause for delay. so i'd ask my colleagues, how can we work together? and i think for a moment i'll just pause and say that

yesterday was an ununfortunate -- was an unfortunate incident in the house oversight committee. it did not reflect well on this constitution or chairmen who lead committees and -- institution or chairmen who lead committees. and i pause to say that because i think it's an important statement to make on the floor of the house. that we should never have a setting on a committee where a ranking member is silenced or that a hand is used across one's neck to make a comment about an individual not being able to speak. all of us are equal. i raise that here because we're talking about process and procedure. and even though one might argue that there was a regular process of this particular legislation, we could have been more collaborative. because i am everyone thetic and i am sympathetic that -- empathetic and i am sympathetic that we all want to make sure that jobs are created, that the administration has made an assessment that nepa is not the delay. the bush administration has done so. and what we need is to fully fund the government.

with adequate resources so that our agencies, with the appropriate staff, can move forward. i am from the region of the oil spill of 2010. and that oil spill at that time -- we were -- mr. johnson: additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional half minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you. at that time voices that were republican and democrat from the gulf region were raising their voices about the process of review. what happened with boma? why wasn't there some understanding that there were some cracks in the system? even the industry recognized that we must work on best practices. not less regulation. not bad practices. but best practices. and what did we do? we put in regulations that would enhance the oversight of the issues of drilling. and so, mr. chairman, let me say that i rise to oppose this legislation. we can do it more collaboratively and we need to treat each other with the

dignity and respect that this particular institution deserves, both in committee and on the floor of the house and, mr. chairman, i thank you for your courtesies, i thank you for your courtesy, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from pennsylvania -- the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> mr. speaker, i now yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, leader cantor. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: chairman, i thank you and i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for his leadership in bringing this bill forward. mr. chairman, i rise today in support of the rapid act. it's hard enough for working middle class wage earners, many of whom haven't seen a raise in years, to get by. with record low temperatures, polar vortexes and damaging snow storms, this brutal winter has created even bigger problems for america's families. for too many, just paying the monthly heating bills has become a real challenge. a few weeks ago my hometown

paper, the reported on -- paper reported on record-high propane prices and the impact it's had on the 135,000 virginia families who heat their homes with propane. unfortunately cost increases are effecting families, where they use propane, natural gas, or electricity to heat their homes. right now moms and dads all across america are sitting at their kitchen table looking at one of the largest home heating bills they've ever seen. we in congress can't do much about the cold weather, but we can enact sensible policies that expand energy supplies and reduce costs. and that's exactly what we're doing in the house this week. if you heat your home with propane, our bills tackle the infrastructure problems that have led to record price increases. if you heat your home with natural gas, we're trying to make it easier to move the natural gas that's being developed throughout the country to your home.

if you heat your home with electricity, we're halting excessive and unnecessary regulations that are expected to drive up the cost of electricity. the bottom line, we are reducing energy costs for america's families. middle class families in virginia and throughout america have enough to focus on without having to worry about washington making it more expensive for them to heat their homes. this is an opportunity for members of the house to stand together. and to offer some relief to struggling americans who are simply trying to pay their energy bills and provide for their families. i want to thank chairman goodlatte, representative marino and the rest of the judiciary committee for their hard work on this issue and i urge my colleagues to support this bill. i'd also like to thank chairman upton, whitfield, chairman shuster and congressman mckinley for their work on all the legislation we're dealing

with, with energy costs this beak -- week. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. give now my pleasure to one minute to the distinguished gentleman from michigan, the ranking member of the full judiciary committee, mr. john conyers. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to commend my colleague n judiciary committee, mr. johnson, for the leadership that he has exercised here in bringing this discussion rward on a bill that is very disappointing to me. this bill imposes hard and fast deadlines that will be unrealistic and -- in certain circumstances and would

undercut responsible decision making and public involvement in the federal review and permitting processes. and i ask unanimous consent to have my statement included in the record. in its full extent. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered by general leave. mr. conyers: thank you. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. marino: mr. chairman, i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, congressman kelly. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. kelly: i thank the gentleman. good friend and great colleague. and for bringing this rapid act forward. because i strongly support it. i want to just reflect. go out of these hallowed chambers and go into the private sector and think about going through a permitting process and thinking about the longer you delay the more you have to pay. it's just that simple. you can drag these things out and drag these things out and drag these things out and when you ask people, what is it that i have to do, i've already done

everything you've required me to, so just a little bit more. so it becomes -- the answer's how long's the piece of string? we don't know. what we're doing by not getting this done, and we've talked about the number of jobs that are waiting and if we're talking about improving the economy -- and these are not republican jobs or democrat jobs. these are american jocks. -- jobs. and what are we doing? american projects to help the american economy. so today to even have a debate -- and this is a bipartisan effort. there's no question about it. we both feel the same way. we both know what the problems are in our country right now. we have too many people unemployed. in fact, we have too many people who have given up even looking for a job. that's the unreported number that we never reflect. but on this case and this case we know that delaying only increases what we have to pay. and who's picking up the tab on this? it's hardworking american taxpayers. it's just not the maligned 1% who doesn't want to pay their fair share.

this is every single american woman and man that's out there. it affects how they live their lives. it affects how they pay their bills. it affects the future of our economy. so i know we have to have debates. and this is not a debate that's heated but it is about heat in a way. and this week we've talked about, let's heat american homes, let's make sure that we have sustainable path, let's make sure we're not putting on the backs of these folks too much. there's an old saying where i come from, it's don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon. right now the mule's about ready to unhook himself from the wagon and say, you've asked me to pull too much for far too long. so, with mr. marino and what he's brought forth today, a commonsense approach to creating jobs and getting improvements in our country? not improvements for just republicans, but improvements for every single american. isn't that why we're all here think? know i represent 705,687 western pennsylvanians. i don't know how their registered or how they vote. i don't know how they worship.

but i do know this. they sent me to washington to represent their best interests. and in larger sense, the state of pennsylvania and the whole country. if we cannot agree on things like this, my goodness, where do we go from here? so i would just ask my colleagues, and this is truly a bipartisan effort and thank you so much for what you've done, this just makes sense. and in a town where common sense is found in such few places, let's look at this and understand the uplift for the american people and for our economy and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you. to blame the lack of job the ion, mr. speaker, on inefficiency of regulations is kind of like -- it reminds me of when you're downstairs in the bathroom and something's

leaking from the upstairs bathroom, and then someone tells you that it's raining, it just doesn't make sense. and with that i will yield five minutes to the gentleman from oregon, my good friend and ranking member on the natural resources committee, mr. defazio. for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman for the time. i'm a bit confused. if you're listening to the debate you've got to be confused about what this bill is really about. it's apparently about rapid citing of nuclear plants or about -- siting of nuclear plants or constructing pipelines through your backyard without you being allowed to comment or any environmental review and somehow this is going to lead to job creation in america. the beginning of the debate they were talking about

transportation and infrastructure. i happened to be on that committee also. first off, we already did some streamlining in the last highway re-authorization. there is pending streamlining in the water resources development act. but let's drill down a little. what's the real problem? the real problem is that this side of the aisle, the republicans, don't want to make the investments necessary to put people back to work. the highway trust fund has gone -- is going broke on october 1. not a word from that side except the brave chairman of the ways and means committee who proposed that -- fund it with some tax reform. but nothing else from that side. no proposals on how we're going to continue to fund transportation infrastructure in this country. water resources development act, we got a bill pendsing with some streamlining but guess what? there are $60 billion, b, billion of backlogged authorized water resources development projects that have gone through the full nepa

process and been approved. but the annual construction budget, thanks to my freb friends on the other side of the -- friends on the other of the aisle is, $1.2 billion a year. i guess that figures out to a 50-year backlog so it isn't going to matter how much you eliminate nepa review here, which is essentially what this bill is about, which cuts out and other, you know, other small things like that, but 50-year backlog. but this will solve that problem. we'll be building -- no, we won't really, because we don't have the money. how about roads, bridges, highways, transit? $80 billion backlog in transit. nepa, no, not nepa. no money. federal highways, we have 140,000 bridges on the federal system that need replacement or substantial rehabilitation or repair. no money. it isn't nepa review that's stopping that. it's a lack of funding. we're not making the necessary

investments. so, you're not addressing jobs here. don't pretend you're addressing jobs. don't pretend you're addressing utility rates and don't even pretend that this bill is going anywhere. we repeal nepa every other day in the resources committee or the republican majority does. hasn't happened yet. and now this is the new way to come at it, through the judiciary committee. i guess they get tired, i mean, we have had a lot of bills on the floor to repeal nepa that have been passed and have gone to the senate and nothing's happened, so let's try and fool them. we'll cloak it in a judiciary bill instead of in a resources bill and we'll pretend it's not really about nepa or it's about something else. actually this bill is really bizarre. because it creates an entirely new process for reviewing projects by amending the administration procedures act. doesn't repeal nepa. so, wow, how are those conflicts going to work out? what are the agencies really going to do? how are they going to -- this s -- i mean, it's gobblygook

legislation on top of making a number of false assertions about what it will accomplish. . rapid, we're really good at names around here but we're really not good at getting things done. this should be a bipartisan consensus and there has been during my long tenure in congress on building things, rebuilding things and building an infrastructure. you know it's embarrassing. the united states of america is investing less money in its infrastructure, which is falling apart, than many third-world countries. and i talked about how we're developing a third-world infrastructure. i had a colleague who is very knowledgeable on the issue. it's insulting. you know how bad the state of our infrastructure is? he says no. it's insulting to third-world countries because they are investing a larger percentage of their gross domestic product in infrastructure than the united states of america is investing. plain and simple. you can dodge, you can weave,

you can come up with great names, you can make unbelievable assertions on the floor, bottom line facts -- we need to invest in rebuilding america. and for every $1 billion we spend on infrastructure, it's somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 jobs. and these are private sector jobs. private sector jobs. they do the work when the government provides the money to the states which goes out and competitively bids projects and they build them. but without money they aren't going to build them. doesn't matter what the environmental review process is. no money, no projects. drop it, guys. come on. let's do something real around here for a change. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ennsylvania. mr. marino: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. amusing o: it's almost to hear my colleagues from the other side say how much they want to work together, how much they want to get this country moving, how much they want to create jobs. and since i've been here, this is my second term, fourth year, i have seen virtually no cooperation from the other side in creating jobs. they get up and give a good speech about names, but there's no substance to it. there's no substance to it at all. as a matter of fact, this is a bipartisan piece of legislation . both sides support this. you know, my colleagues have -- had control of the house prior to the republicans controlling it, four years ago. they touched none of these issues. and i want to ask the american people, not my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, how's this federal regulation

ystem going over the last five years? virtually no jobs created. agencies stopping everything they can under this administration, but yet they stand up and give a good speech about cooperation. i have rarely seen it here. i've seen obstructionists, because it's a power play. you know, when someone comes up with a good idea -- and i blame both sides for this -- it's not what's in the best interest of the american people. it's who is in power that wants to keep it and who is not in ower that wants to take it a away and one of the main reason i came to -- away and one of the main reasons i came to washington is not to preserve my job, not to keep power, not to take power. it is to do what is right. and if you would listen to what

takes place in the hearings in that i 3 1/2 years have been involved in, you don't hear cooperation. you don't hear it at all. so how is -- i ask my colleagues on the other side -- how is that federal system going? how is that permitting system going, that regulation system going? it's not going well at all. just ask industry how much it's been slowed down because of regulation and thousands and thousands of more regulations implemented by this administration than ever before. so let's get serious. ok. let's be honest with the american people about what this had is about. the federal government doesn't create jobs. private sector creates job. the responsibility of the federal government is to remove obstacles that allow private industry to do what they do. better than the federal

government. and as i said before, i know a lot of good people here in congress, know a lot of good people in the federal system, but there is a fair number of people in the federal system in these agencies that say no just for the sake of going no that if they worked in private industry and operate under the same premise as they do in the federal government they would be fired. it's about time we start standing up for the american people and create jobs. i hear from this administration constantly, but there are always obstacles. there's 40-some pieces of legislation sitting on harry reid's desk, the leader of the senate, the democrat who won't even bring it to the floor for a vote. that is a disgrace. bring it to the floor for a vote. vote it up or down, but let the american people know what is being voted on and it should be brought to the floor so they know what's going on here. with that, mr. chairman, i have no additional speakers. close, and ght to

is my friend from the other side ready to close? with that i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: federal government doesn't create a single job. i don't know how -- i don't know exactly how many jobs we're talking about cutting in he federal government from the drawdown of the defense, but certainly less federally ployed army, navy, air force and marine personnel and those who work in the department of defense to support their efforts to defend this nation and keep us strong. federal government does not create a single job. delivering our mail. good-paying jobs. middle class.

but i must rise in opposition to this legislation, mr. speaker, because it would -- it uld -- it's so utter confusion. h.r. 2641 does that by creating a separate but only partly parallel environmental review for construction projects that will only cause confusion, delay and litigation . as a result of this bill, there could potentially be two different environmental review processes for the same project. rather than improving the environmental review process, this bill will complicate it and generate litigation. but more importantly, the bill is yet another effort by my friends on the other side of the aisle to gum up the

regulatory process and thus undermine regulatory protections. as with all of the anti-regulatory bills that this congress has considered over the last few weeks, this measure is simply another thinly disguised effort to hobble the ability of federal agencies to do the work that congress requires them to do. accordingly, i strenuously oppose this seriously flawed bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for 4 1/2 minutes. mr. marino: i yield myself the remainder of the time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. marino: you know, mr. hairman, to bring about real

job recovery, there can be only within conclusion what the house should do -- one conclusion what the house should do today and that's pass the rapid act. my friend talked about the post office and i support them. my mom worked for the post office. you know something, the post office is self-funded. ok. where's the $1 trillion that this administration put into the so-called stimulus? did nothing. wasn't applied properly. wasn't utilized. this doesn't cut regulation, this legislation. it doesn't cut regulation. it cuts making a decision from 15 years down to 4 1/2 years. just think in our households how many of us would delayed by years making decisions. this is bipartisan legislation that would transform into immediate action and

recommendations of the president's job council, a promise that president obama made. the president's job council stated that our system for jobs ing and creating stating that the process be streamlined. the rapid act did that. president obama's state of the union wanted to streamline the permitting process so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible. a rapid -- the rapid act delivers that. let's come together, republicans, democrats, for hardworking, desperate americans are dress pret for good-paying jobs. the rapid act allows that to happen. on average it takes the federal government 10 years to 15 years for permitting.

the private institute operating in such an irresponsible manner, it would be bankrupt. instead of talking the talk, it's time to walk the walk and pass this legislation that would create excellent-paying jobs. my legislation reduces permitting down to 4 1/2 years, and it doesn't take any authority away. it appoints a single entity that has a -- federal agency that has a major handle in this for oversight. and if my colleagues are saying, well, it's not the federal government, it's state and local government, then that agency can light the fire under that local or state government and tell them you must get your approvals in or by a certain time your opportunity to do that will be waived. so still in an effort to reach across the aisle and work with my colleagues and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. let's cut the red tape. ask the people in my district about red tape, those were the v.a., those were social

security, what they have to go through with agencies, those from e.p.a., those from osha, it's a disaster. so let's come together, republicans and democrats, for hardworking americans, and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-39. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part c of house report 113-374. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and

controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it's now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report 113-374. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report 113-374 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 501, the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. my amendment strikes the provision deeming approved any project which the agency does not meet deadlines contained in the bill. as we have listened to the discussion, as i indicated in my earlier time on the floor,

there is much that we can agree to on the issue of making more effective our federal government. making it work for the people. we all agree to that. in fact, i had suggested that we provide full funding for infrastructure. but this bill ignores the value of oversight. and the bill also ignores the fact that nepa has for more than 40 years provided an effective framework for all types of projects, not just construction projects, that require federal approval pursuant to a federal law, such as the clean air act. . i want to read into the record a comment i made earlier why this is a misdirected legislation. the c.e.q., general counsel for 5 years during the reagan, orge h.w. bush, clinton, and george w. bush nation, observed

most delays in the environmental review processes are caused by factors other than nepa or justified by the nature of the project. yet this bill would indicate that if by the time this bill designates the oversight has not been finished, that could be an oversight for a nuclear plant, it could be an oversight dealing with some of the energy resources that we have. that require that kind of oversight. it could be the oversight of building a major construction project through a heavily populated neighborhood. it could be oversight on many aspects of america's business. then this bill says it is simply deemed up. deemed up, mr. chairman. so how can one believe that problems will be solved by just ignoring, ignoring the process? there is a major problem with this section my amendment addresses. that is automatic approval, that deeming up, that beaming up, so

i'd ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment which relieves us of that burden of fearfully passing legislation that would, in fact, deem up. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is reserved. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. marino: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes mr. marino: with all due respect to my colleague, we have worked closely together on several committees, mr. chairman the american people desperately need new jobs. just this week the bureau of labor statistics reported the american labor force participation rate is at a 35-year low. over 92 million americans who could work are outside of the work force. that is more than the population of all but 14 of the world's 228 countries and more than every country in the western hemisphere but brazil and mexico. we face this historically low

rate not because americans don't want to work, because so many americans have dess paired of any hope of finding -- dispaired of any hope of finding a new remust passb and -- the bill not weaken it. to provide these new high-wage jobs. the gentlelady's amendment would whackon the bill in one of the worst possible ways t would remove the clear consequence in the bill for agencies that refuse to follow the bill's deadlines. that consequence is to deem permits approved if agencies refuse to approve or deny them within those deadlines. mr. chairman, the bill provides 4 1/2 years for agencies to complete the environmental reviews for new permit applications and reasonable additional time for agencies to wrap up final permit approvals or denials after that. 4 1/2 years is more time than it

took the united states to fight and win world war ii. if agencies can't wrap up their environmental reviews in that much time, and it meets the bill's remaining deadlines, there is something terribly wrong with the agencies. the prospect of facing a default approved by the end of the substantial time the bill grants is an imminently reasonable way to assure that agencies will conduct full reviews and wrap their work up in time to make up or down decisions on their own. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: how much time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: and the other gentleman? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: let me restate again what is in this legislation. if a federal agency fails to approve or disapprove a project or make the determination within the applicable deadline which is either 90 days or 180 days, then

the project is automatically deemed approved, deemed approved by such agency. mr. speaker, to the american people want something deemed approved that might be a dangerous and unsuitable project in their community? as it relates to the creation of jobs, i thank the gentleman for his explanation, but i will tell you that it is sad by the federal highway administration the majority of the approved projects required limited documentation or analysis under nepa. further when environmental requirements cause project delays, requirements established in laws other than nepa have generally been the source. nepa has not stopped the creation of jobs. what i can tell my good friend if it we could pass the unemployment insurance extension, we could give opportunity to americans to keep looking for jobs. if we pass a infrastructure bill, we would have jobs. my point is that my amendment is he very simple. it is just to eliminate that provision that my dangerously --

might dangerously put americans in jeopardy by in essence allowing projects to be approved while there is a studious, consciencious review of that project that is to generate jobs but to provide for the safety and security and the tranquility and peace of the american people. i can't imagine we want to throw into legislation on streamlining an absolute hatchet that says your neck is cut off if, in fact, you're not finished with your work, the heck with it. we are going on to produce this project. i know that the american people believe in the spirit of my good friend from pennsylvania's intentions. we can work together. we can put legislation forward that can be constructive. but a shortened time of four years is nothing to celebrate if in essence the time is needed for review. i cited some of the challenges that we face. oil spills, construction projects that have seen large

numbers of deaths because of the way it was done. collapse of buildings as we have seen in the tragedy of the building that was collapsed in pennsylvania. other terrible disasters that have occurred that require the rebuild of certain facilities in the united states. i cannot imagine -- again i might say that the general counsel that was general counsel for the c.e.q. to all of the last four presidents have indicated nepa is not a problem. i ask that my amendment, the jackson lee amendment, be supported. and make this legislation a step better and step in the direction to get it where it should be. i ask my colleagues to support my amendment. the chair: the gentleman from ennsylvania. mr. marino: mr. chairman, um' just going to close on this thought here.

my colleague on the other side says that 4 1/2 years is just simply not enough time to go through the permitting and licensing project. just think about this. ask the people in the private sector when you see buildings going up, before they are going up, when there's a statement on the land where the building's going to go up as to this project is going to take place in so much time. ask those people, get information to see how long it takes the private sector to do the same thing that the federal government is supposed to be doing. at most a couple years. not 10 years. not 12 years. not 15 years. private industry can have this done in a couple of years with all the research, with all the permitting, with all the licensing, with all the hearings, and i think one of my colleagues said this locks out the public from hearing or

making any statements. that's simply not true. that is absolutely not true. the public still has the time and can do that. so with that i oppose my good friend's amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman yield back his time? mr. marino: i yield back my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: friction, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas be -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? mr. mckinley: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in part c of house report number 113-374 offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 501, the gentleman from west virginia, mr.

mckinley, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: i thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would prohibit agencies under this legislation from using the social cost of carbon that this administration implemented under executive order. late on a friday afternoon in june of 2013, this increase in the cost estimate for social cost of carbon showed up in an obscure rule regarding microwave offense. typical fashion with this administration, there was no public debate. no stakeholder comment. no vote in congress for this estimate. which increased the cost over 50%. but they didn't consider the social cost of mental anguish. health care. for those that lose their jobs. as a result. then again this is the same administration who issued a de

facto ban on new coal-fired powerhouses and refused to hold listening sessions in the areas most affected by fossil fuels. coal production is down throughout appalachia, and down by nearly half over the last five years under this administration. too many people in washington just don't get it. when you shut down fossil fuel industry in a community, in particular coal mine, you shut down an entire community. railroad workers, machinist, timber, and coal industry, pharmacists, schoolteachers all are affected by these kinds of policies. entire communities, the social fabric of our nation are on edge. while this administration's ideologically driven policies are threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs all across america. this is the same president in 2008 said he would bankrupt the coal industry. this has become personal to me, mr. chairman, and many people

throughout the coal fields of america. the rest of the world is investing in coal, building new plants, and increasing their consumption of coal. but not here in america. this president is gambling with our economy and risking america's future. for a president who likes to talk about fairness, mr. chairman, blaming our fossil fuels as a health risk isn't fair. but then again is it fair for the e.p.a. to require standards that can't be achieved? is it fair to blame man for climate change when naturally occurring co-2 emissions represent 96% naturally? u.s. coal emissions contribute only .2, let me say that, .2 of 1%. f the emissions occur from coal-fired powerhouse. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you. mr. speaker, this amendment would prohibit an agency from considering the social costs of carbon. social costs of carbon. in an agency's environmental review of a proposed construction project. this amendment ignores the fundamental reality that climate change is real. and we need to do something about it. the social cost of carbon, or s.c.c., is an estimate of the social and economic benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions that began under the bush administration and has been upheld by the courts. for example, the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit ordered the national highway traffic safety administration to include s.c.c. in its light

truck fuel economy standards in 007. thomas sterner, an economist with the environmental defense fund cited the obama administration's s.c.c. estimates as a welcome step forward reflecting the latest versions of the underlying models. billy penny-wise and pound-foolisher, a duke university economist notes that the key thing is we are recognizing the answer is not zero. he we know there are negative consequences. and we are trying to put an accurate dollar value on it. even william bumpers, an attorney with baker, bots who typically represents manufacturers in pollution cases acknowledged that, quote, the only real cost of carbon that i know is wrong is zero.

perhaps most importantly for purposes of this amendment is that there is overwhelming consensus that every ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere has very real costs to human health ecosystems and the economy. the s.c.c. estimates involve extensive analysis of the best available peer reviewed literature and climate economic assessment models. they include a broad range of costs associated with anticipated climate impacts on society. . such as increasing flood risk or the additional energy costs associated with climate oscillations. since 2009 alone, there have been a series of major climatic events that demonstrate the ostly effects of climate

change. how many so-called 100-year storms have to hit a major city like new york before climate skeptics will wake up? in 2011, the texas drought alone cost farmers and ranchers over $5 billion. how many farmers' crops must wither on the vine before we face up to the real costs of inaction? i ask my colleagues to oppose this very detrimental amendment, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: thank you, mr. chairman. i think we can all admit that the co-2 emissions have increased. in the last number of years, 200 years, the co-2 emissions have went from 200 parts per million to 400 parts per

million. population has expanded by eight times. life expectency across the world has doubled. human cancers and viral diseases have decreased. do opponents of our fossil fuels truly believe our society will be developed on anything other than cheap, abundant and reliable sources of energy such as coal and natural gas? fossil fuels have lifted billions of people out of poverty. co-2 is essential to human life. in "the new york times," bill gates was quoted saying, if you could pick one to reduce poverty by far you would pick energy. according to statistics from the e.i.a., in 2010, 80% of the world's g.d.p. is attributed to fossil fuels. this represents $60 trillion. however, the opponents of this amendment and fossil fuels in general turned a blind eye to the suffering of over 1.3 billion people across the world

who have no access to electricity, for heating, cooking and water supplies. that is a social travesty. to quote one climate scientist spoke with, just so one radical environmentalist can feel about themselves, they prevent families and children living in poverty to have access to the most dependable and affordable energy resources. that, mr. chairman, is immoral. in closing, i'd like to thank chairman goodlatte for his staunch support of this amendment and his hard work on the underlying legislation. i urge all my colleagues to accept this had amendment and legislation. poverty is not just the number one threat of the environment and health to our society but throughout the world in general. and i yield back the balance of my time to my chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. is the gentleman yielding? mr. goodlatte: goode i would

ask unanimous consent to put my statement in the record. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part c of house report 113-374. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. webster: thank you, mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part c of house report 113-374 offered by mr. webster of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 501, the gentleman from florida, mr. webster, and a web opposed, each will control -- -- and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. webster: i thank chairman goodlatte and mr. marino for putting this bill into effect, the rapid act.

i offer an amendment today not to alter the process but to ensure that projects that are currently languishing in endless environmental review have the opportunity to access the tools provided in this tool. mr. chairman, infrastructure projects are vital to my home state of florida, from port infrastructure, to airports, to seaports, even the everglades restoration projects, my state has wise investment in infrastructure. two projects in my state suffered greatly under the current environmental review process. orlando international airport has had plans to develop a piece of development for airport services for more than a decade. e expansion would create skilled, high-paying jobs. a simple environmental assessment should not take more than six years. another project in our state, port everglades, involves

deepening an existing channel. the deepening of the channel for port everglades would allow more exports to flow out of our state on ships. this project is vital to our state as a whole but also important to central florida due to the large amounts of citrus that ships out of our state through port everglades. the more citrus we can ship, the more jobs we create. however, the channel deepening has been under environmental review for more than 17 years. nearly two decades port everglades has been caught in the endless cycle of review. the florida delegation is committed, both republican and democrat, in getting this project complete. my amendment today is offered with these projects in mind. this amendment simply applies the same timelines that the rapid act establishes for new projects, to projects that are currently under review. does it mean they would be automatically, if it's already 4 1/2 years into the project?

no. it means that timeline would not go beyond another 4 1/2 years before those. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment would make the rapid act, the so-called rapid act, which by the way i should rename as our caucus has done, the regrettably another partisan ideological distraction act. but this rapid act will apply retroactively to construction projects that are currently under review. and as a result, all of the bill's problematic revisions that we have cited, even the arbitrary deadlines for environmental review and restrictions on public comment, would apply to pending

construction projects that require federal approval or federal permitting. this amendment, like the rapid act, ignores the fact that nepa is not the problem. according to the congressional research service, which is nonpartisan, project approval delays based on -- based on environmental requirements are not caused by nepa. rather, c.r.s. reports these delays are caused by state and local factors, like project funding levels, local opposition to a project, a project's complexity or late changes in the project scope. -- majority claims that this amendment will do nothing to address the underlying problem, and that underlying problem is the lack of funding.

so we need to address, mr. speaker, the root causes of the delays in the process, not threaten public health and safety by automatically approving projects when agencies fail to meet arbitrary deadlines. and i will reserve the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to make sure everyone understands what this does. it would limit to 4 1/2 more years. so we have a project 17 years in. now we're saying, all right, could you give us an answer in 4 1/2 more years? over two decades and we can't get an answer? i don't know. maybe we won't. but if the answer is no, say it. that's all they have to do. this doesn't automatically approve anything. what it says is, give us an answer. is it 21 years long -- isn't 21 years long enough? so i reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the time is reserved. the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i think it's appropriate that i utter this saying. show me the money. and when the money is there, projects can start being funded and work can begin, and workers can start working and getting paychecks. and in that way we will -- we will reinvigorate this economy, but we got to have instead of anti-regulatory bills, we need job creation bills. and with that i will -- i will yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. webster: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for

two minutes. mr. marino: thank you. . chairman, i want to just highlight some construction that's taken place in the past before we had all this regulation. san francisco bay bridge construction started july 9, 1933, and the bridge opened up on november 12, 1936. chesapeake bay bridge construction started in january of 1949 and the bridge opened up july 30, 1952. empire state building construction started january 22, 1930, and the bill opened up may 1, 1931. the chrysler building construction began in 1926 and was completed in 1930. one of my favorites, new yankee stadium groundbreaking was in august of 2006. opening day was april of 2009. you know, if my colleagues, there are thousands of comedians out of business.

if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would get serious about following the premise the american people want, less red tape, instead of trying to be funny, we'd be in good shape. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. webster: i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the chairman of the judiciary. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. goodlatte: i rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment and i ask unanimous consent to place in the record my remarks in support of his amendment. the chair: without objection. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. webster: mr. chairman, i thank the chairman for his support. i urge the members to vote for this amendment. it's a good amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. johnson: did i hear the speaker say the ayes have it? is that -- the chair: the gentleman is correct. the chair has concluded that

he ayes have it. is the gentleman seeking further action? the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part c of house report 113-374. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part c of house report 113-374 offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 501, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. chairman, my amendment exempts from the bill any construction project for a nuclear facility planned in an area designated as an earthquake fault zone. the rapid act would prevent meaningful input on complicated construction projects that have the potential to have sdust russ impact on individuals living -- disastrous impact on

individuals living near them. the aftermath of the power plant in japan and the tsunami, highlights the dangers of regulatory failure when it comes to ensuring the safe operation of nuclear reactors. in addition, the fukushima shows the construction project in an area susceptible to earthquakes and tsunamis. march 11, 014, next week marks the three-year anniversary of the fukushima meltdown. a recent reporter visiting the site recently described it like this. the site of fukushima nuclear isaster in japan remains a postapocalyptic town frozen in time. now, consider the power plant which is 20 miles from new york city and according to the nuclear regulatory commission could have core damage from an earthquake. an estimated 17 million people live within a 50-mile radius of

the indian point nuclear power plant. by opposing strict deadlines and limiting opportunities for agencies and the public to participate in the approval process, this bill could prevent the nuclear regulatory commission from being able to protect the tens of millions who live in the greater new york metropolitan area and millions of other americans who live near nuclear power plants from a catastrophe akin to what happened to fukushima, japan. i want to point out we have already had nuclear accidents right here in the united states. just last month, night shift workers, plutonium that was at a nuclear waste burial site in carlsbad, new mexico. these workers face the possibility of subatomic particles in their internal organs for the rest of their life. now, imagine the risk to human health that could result to a large-scale leak from an earthquake. it could be catastrophic. we cannot water down nuclear

restrictions or not protecting human health. my amendment would ensure that the inclusive and prudential approval process that currently exists under the national environmental policy act will continue to apply to any construction project for a nuclear facility planned in an area designated as an earthquake fault zone. the procedures in this bill that would short-circuit the nepa procedures are just too dangerous. . i urge everyone it support the amendment because when it comes to constructing a nuclear facility and earl quake fault zone, we really cannot be >> -- earthquake fault zone, we really cannot be too careful. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: i rise in opposition to the am. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the amendment is unnecessary and could needlessly block important energy construction projects from breaking ground.

the march, 2011 project no project study identified 351 energy he projects, including nuclear projects, that if approved could generate $1.1 trillion for the economy and create 1.9 million jobs annually. i appreciate my colleague is concerned about the safety of nuclear power, including an earthquake fault zone. the rapid act does not require agencies to approve or deny any particular project or permit application. it simply ensures that the environmental review and permitting process is conducted by agencies in an efficient and transparent manner. it is consistent with the administration's own guidance, the president's jobs council, recommendations, prior bipartisan legislation, and the all of the above energy strategy that america needs. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time.

the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i would simply point out that no, the rapid acts to not guarantee any nuclear power plant or anything else, but it does short circuit the proper review. it says that if certain procedures are not completed within a certain period of time, the application is deemed approved. it means that the applicant can slow walk information and get an approval automatically. because the review is not complete within a period of time. it's just too dangerous. the present procedures we have have, in fact, allowed us to build a nuclear power plant and other facilities have been built. we should not play russian roulette with the lives of millions of americans by short-circuiting the environmental review of nuclear power plants, especially in earthquake fault zones. yes, we need energy.

yes, we should have energy from all sorts of power sources, but we should do it safely and not risk fukushimas galore. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time of the the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the question offered by the -- the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the question offered by the gentleman from -- the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5, considered in mart c 113-374. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: i rise in support of this amendment. the chair: does gentleman have an amendment at the desk? mr. johnson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5, printed in part c of house report number 113-374, offered

by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 501, the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the rules committee for making my amendment in order and urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment to protect the right of the public to comment on federal projects under the nepa review process. the purpose of my amendment is simple. it protects the right of the public to comment. this amendment would ensure that h.r. 2641, the so-called rapid act of 2013, does not restrict the right of any member of the public to comment on construction projects that may have an environmental impact. like the administration and more than 20 well respected environmental groups, i oppose the rapid act. this bill threatens public

health and safety by putting a thumb on the scales in favor of private sector businesses in the project approval process. it is yet another anti-regulatory measure whose sole purpose is to grease the wheels of the approval process for projects that are environmentally sensitive. aside from creating duplicative and costly regulatory requirements that pertain to only certain types of projects, the rapid act would also limit e right of the public to comment on these projects. the bill does that in two ways. first, by reducing opportunities for public input, and second, by fast tracking the approval process through arbitrary deadlines. the nuclear weapona -- nepa approval process has protshtsh protkted the environment for more than 20 years, mr. speaker,

and it's designed to be smart from the start. through an open, flexible, and timely process, nepa empowers the public to weigh in on decisions. that means that the local farmer who owns land that would be affected by a federal construction project has equal footing as the company that would stand to benefit from that project. my amendment is vital to ensuring that rapid -- that the rapid act doesn't shut the public out of this process. i hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join me in ensuring that the rapid act does not foreclose public participation. accordingly, i urge that this committee make my amendment in order. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. goodlatte: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: the rapid act will create jobs by ensuring that the federal environmental review and permitting process works like it should. the rapid act is drafted to make agencies operate efficiently and transparently. it does not prevent citizens from participating in this process. in fact, the bill makes sure that agencies provide the public with reasonable public comment periods. it authorizes up to 60 days of public comment on environmental impact statements. up to 30 days of comment on environmental assessments and other documents. and grants the lead agency authority to negotiate extensions or provide them on its own for good cause. this is more than fair. by comparison, the national environmental policy act, nepa, regulations only require agencies to allow 45 days for public comment on draft environmental impact statements and 30 days for public comments on final environmental impact

statements. the rapid act also reasonably requires that a person comment on an environmental document before challenging it in court and bring any suit within six months as opposed to six years. opponents should not be able to delay a project indefinitely by playing hide the ball with agencies or by resting on their rights. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back he balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. johnson: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i

move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion for the committee to rise. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the chair: the committee of the whole on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2641 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2641 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. fudge: mr. speaker, i have a resolution at the desk previously noticed under rule 9. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: whereas on march 5, 2014, during a hearing before the house committee on oversight and government reform, committee

chairman darell e. issa gave a statement and then posed 10 questions to former internal revenue official, lois lerner, who stated she was invoking her fifth amendment right not to testify. whereas the committee's ranking member, representative elijah e. cummings, clearly sought recognition to take his turn for questions under committee and house rules, whereas chairman issa then quickly adjourned the hearing and refused to allow him to make any statement or ask any questions. whereas ranking member cummings protested immediately stating, mr. chairman, you cannot run a committee like this. you cannot do this. this is -- we are better than that as a country. we are better than that as a committee. whereas chairman issa then returned and allowed ranking member cummings to begin his statement, but when it became clear that chairman issa did not want to hear what ranking member cummings was saying, turned off ranking member cummings' microphone, ordered republican staff to close it down, and

repeatedly signaled to end the hearing with his hand across his neck. whereas ranking member cummings objected again stating, you cannot have a one-sided investigation. there is absolutely something wrong with that. whereas chairman issa made a statement of his own and posed questions during the hearing but refused to allow other members of the committee and in particular the ranking member who had sought recognition to make statements under the five-minute rule in violation of house rule 11. whereas chairman issa instructed the microphones to be turned off and adjourned the hearing without a vote or a unanimous consent agreement in violation of rule 16. because he did not want to permit ranking member cullings -- cummings to speak. whereas chairman issa's abusive behavior on march 5 is part of a continuing pattern which he has routinely excluded members of the committee from the investigative meatings and has routinely provided information to the press before sharing it with committee members.

whereas chairman issa has violated clause 1 of rule 23 of the code of official conduct which states that, a member, delegate, resident commissioner, officer, or employee of the house shall behave at all times in a manner that shall he reflect credibly on the house. now therefore be it resolved that the house of representatives strongly condemns the offensive and disrespectful manner in which chairman darell e. issa conducted the hearing of the house committee on oversight and government reform on march 5, 2014, during which he turned off microphones of the ranking member while he was speaking and adjourned the hearing without a vote or a unanimous consent agreement. the speaker pro tempore: resolution qualifies. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: i move to lay the resolution on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to lay the resolution on the table. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. cantor: recorded vote.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia -- the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 211.

the nays are 18 . with 10 voting present. the motion is adopted. without the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to house resolution 501 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2641. will the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2641, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to he provide for improved coordination of agency actions in the preparation and adoption of the environmental documents for permitting determinations, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, a request for recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in part c of house report 113-374

offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, had been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now begin on those amendments printed in part c of house report 113-374, on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by ms. jackson lee of texas. amendment number 2 by mr. mckinley of west virginia. amendment number 4 by mr. nadler of new york. amendment number 5 by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment 1 printed in part c of house report 113-374 by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by

voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report number 113-374, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the eas are -- the chair: on this vote the yeas are 190, the noes are 228, he amendment is not agreed to. excuse me. the yeas are 188 -- 180 and the nays are 228.

he amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on number 2, printed in part c of house report 113-374 by the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 113-374 offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation

with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 222 and the nays are

188. he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printsed in part c of house report -- printed in part c of house report 113-374 by the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed business voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed it in part c of house report 113-374 offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the .s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 187 and the nays are 220. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in part c of house report 113-374 by the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, on which further

proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part c of house report 113-374 offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 192. the nays are 217. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 2641 is and pursuant to house resolution 501 i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the

whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2641 and pursuant to house resolution 501 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a is pratt vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to provide for improved coordination of agency actions in the preparation and adoption of environmental documents for permitting determinations, and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair would ask all members to please take their seats. would ask members and staffs to please take their conversations rom the floor. for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk: ms.delbeney of washington moves to recommit the bill to the committee on the judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the house worth with with the following amendment. >> i move to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? the reading is dispensed with. the house will be in order.

the chair would ask all members and staffs to please take their conversations from the floor. ask all members to please take their seats. the gentlelady from washington is recognized for five minutes. ms.delbeney: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. infrastructure improvements and construction projects are crucial not only for safety but for a roe bust and strong economy. unfortunately, many of our roads and bridges are in a state of disrepair. this isn't the result of environmental review processes, but unfortunately a short sighted failure to invest in our rumbling infrastructure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the chair would ask all members to please take their

conversations from the floor. ask all members to please take their seats. the gentlelady from washington. ms.delbeney: we don't experience tragedies like the bridge collapse in my district last year. for washington state moving forward on construction and infrastructure projects that officially move people and goods will improve connections to washington's ports, support trade help connect people to their jobs, and spur economic growth. i understand that these projects are a valuable driver of job growth and can put people back to work and i agree with the part of this legislation that congress must do everything possible to remove barriers to our economic recovery and job creation. but we simply don't have data to suggest and regulatory red tape and overregulation through the

national environmental prolecy act or nepa are hampering construction projects or impeding job growth. in fact, a 2012 congressional research service report calls into question the idea that nepa compliance is a source of delay in federal highway he projects and found that delays in permitting for construction projects are more often tied to among other things a lack of project funding, whether from state and local or federal sources. this is the real problem an one that congress can help solve by making targeted investments in our nation's infrastructure, whether by passing a final water resources development act on re-authorization bill, or by reforming the highway trust fund to provide more adequate funding for roads and bridge construction. instead, the rapid act in its current form is based on the flawed premise that our current laws not only nepa but laws like the clean air act and the clean water act impede economic growth. in fact, these laws serve important purposes such as

protecting private property owners, local communities, and tribal governments that may be impacted by federal action. while this bill has a worthy goal to prevent delays in the approval of proposed construction projects, this cannot come at the expense of our public health and safety, our environment, or the rights of private property owners. my amendment would ensure that this bill does not override the current regulatory protections governing certain construction projects. just weeks after a hazardous chemical spill harmed the wa supply for residents of west virginia, we cannot afford to undermine regulatory protections that have been in place for decades as a result of the clean air and clean water act. so my amendment excludes construction projects affecting our drinking water or air quality from the weaker regulatory procedures established by this legislation. this amendment will help ensure that americans continue to have access to clean air and water. my amendment also makes clear that when a federal construction project would condemn or infringe on the private property

rights of any american can-t could not sidestep the review process as provided under this legislation. additionally, gutting the nepa requirements under current law for construction projects could pose unique challenges for indian country, which is why my amendment would continue the current nepa process for construction projects that woim pact health, safety, or tribal sovereignty of native american tribes. the rapid act as currently drafted fails to ensure meaningful tribal consultation on these projects. finally, my amendment ensures that we are prioritizing our investments effectively. there are too many americans who continue to look for work and my amendment would require that every construction project assessed whether it will help long-term unemployed americans, including veterans, to make sure they get back to work. this amendment is an opportunity for us to reduce unemployment and assist or veterans struggling to find civilian job opportunities. the approval process should consider whether the project will utilize equipment and

materials manufactured in the united states and whether it will result in the hiring of unemployed workers who are actively seeking work. we should always do our best to support american jobs and american products when spending taxpayer dollars. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the entlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will be recognized for five minutes. as soon as the house returns to order. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. marino: let us develop the resources of our land to call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interest, and see whether we also in our day and generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered. words of representative daniel

webster, right up there. this motion to recommit isn't about improving legislation, it's about imposing roadblocks. erecting hurdles, pointing to excuses to keep us from doing what we were sent here to do. which is to set the wheels of progress turning, to lift the american people out of the crisis and economic calamity, to lift the american people into prosperity and high-paying jobs. people have hungered for months and years for good new high-paying jobs. americans want to know that washington hears them, washington cares about them, and washington knows how to get the red tape out of the way so they can get back to work. the families that depend every day on the breadwinners finding some way to make ends meet want to know that we can deliver on the job we were sent here to do. for three years the president's job council recommended we

streamlined the federal permitting process. vice president biden urged -- urgent words have been echoing. . it's time we get moving back. folks, that isn't a partisan issue. it's an economic issue. less than two months ago president obama stood in the house and promised action to slash bureaucracy an streamline the permitting process so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible. mr. chairman, colleagues, the -- this legislation does this. the rapid act is exactly what our private and public sector leaders have called for. it's what many american workers are yearning for, new work, hoping for higher wages. but what we have before us now with this motion to recommit is exactly a mirror image of everything wrong with the federal permitting process. it keeps jobs from the american people. we have trumped up arguments, procedural advice, a tried and true tactic of delay, excuse for

members of congress to duck the vote and not to make a needed decision that will bring millions of good high-paying jobs to the american people. it is time that the bureaucrats in d.c. and it is time we elected officials clearly understand we work through the american people and that the american people are the government of the united states. it is time for we the members of the house and the senate to take the handcuffs off private industry, the job creators, and remove the boot of delay and procrastination from the throat of prosperity. vote against this motion and vote for the rapid act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. . without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the question is on -- ms.delbeney: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from washington asks for a recorded vote. a recorded vote is requested.

those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on the passage of h.r. 2641, if ordered, and on the suspend the rules with regard to h.r. 4152. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 190, the nays are 217. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 229, the nays are 179. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4152 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4152, a bill to provide for the cost of loan guarantees for ukraine. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

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