marine corps, however, only a handful of service members were disqualified. the navy after screening more than 10,000 soldiers first said it only disqualified five, but just yesterday we have learned that the number has skyrocketed as the navy is actually disqualified 151 sailors from these positions of trust. the air force just revealed tuesday it disqualified two soldiers after it first initially reported none were disqualified. and the marine corps so far has disqualified absolutely no one. . we all know that sexual assault in the military is a crisis and it is not simply limited to the army. it appears to be quite clear that the services used widely divurnlent methodology in assessing the -- divergent methodology in assessing the suitability and it peals the

directive. and it's my understanding that one of the services simply checked the civilian sexual predator registry. hagel's apparently disgusted with top brass in the navy, air force and marine corps, the 188 disqualifications in the army and whether those will pursue a follow-up review. he's reportedly stopped short, however, of issuing another directive. i believe secretary hagel should issue a directive to rescreen the fers in the other services, and i sent him a letter tuesday urging him to do so, because choosing the wrong people for these positions of trust is a betrayal for our troops. the number of those disqualified, by the way, were not voluntarily made public. they continue almost weekly to be unearth by an enterprising reporter at "usa today." the d.o.d. also has not revealed what actions it has

taken to those whom were disqualified. the public has a right to know. i do salute the army for scrubbing what has been a cancerous culture, evidence by the pending court martial of sergeant gregory mcqueen, whose job was to help prevent sexual assault but instead was allegedly running a prostitution ring at fort hood. until the marine corps, air force and navy follow the army's path, however, i have little faith that the department of defense is capable of stamping out military sexual assault by weeding out sexual predators and other criminals in these highly important positions of trust. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. today on capitol hill, we're watching several hundred dedicated vols -- volunteers fan out to heir share their

vision of the united states providing leadership for safe drinking water and sanitation around the globe. they will point out that today, women will spend 200 million hours gathering water for their families. 200 million hours that will not be spent farming or in economic enterprise. 200 million hours that will not be spent in school. 200 million hours that too often takes them away were the village and puts them at risk for physical sexual assault. they will be talking to our colleagues on capitol hill about some critical legislation that my colleague, ted poe, and have introduced, h.r. 2901, the paul simon water for the world act, which will in a deficit-neutral fashion help

refine the approach that the united states, usaid, state department take in providing water assistance around the globe. and i must say this morning i ard in an eloquent fashion congressman poe lay out the need, the vision and the solution, and i cannot say enough about the leadership of my bipartisan colleague from texas who pionts out that as a democrat from the northwest i don't have all that much in common with my republican friend from texas, but this is an area that we are united. the united states must do all it can to prevent unnecessary disease and death from contaminated water. but it goes beyond issues of disease and sanitation. you know, look at what's happened in syria. between 2006 and 2011, nearly

60% of syria's land mass was ravaged by a severe drought. the water table was already too low because of irresponsible farming practices, and it wiped out the livelihood of almost a million syrian farmers and created massive population of drought refugees that flooded into the cities and added to the instability of that tragic country. it ask not cause the civil -- it did not cause the civil war, but the failure of the government to respond to the drought played a huge role in fueling the uprising made tragic by that sad, consequence of events. now the fourth largest city in jordan is a refugee camp where men, women and children are fighting for survival and water as they cross the border to escape the violence.

and this is a growing problem. the global population has now passed seven billion people and much of that growth has taken place in subsaharan africa and asia, two areas of the world that are in greatest need when it comes to water and sanitation. mr. speaker, we have in our capacity the ability to make a difference. and i am pleased to have worked with volunteers from coast to coast, from churches and rotary clubs and students who are making a difference in their own community. it's important for congress to pass the water for the world act and to support the terrific work of congresswoman granger and lowey on the appropriations committee that's protected and actually enhanced a little bit this important money that the united states provides. a small amount in the overall

scheme of things but one that has a tremendous impact of lives along the world -- around the world. i urge my colleagues to take the time to listen to these dedicated volunteers. they have a message we should ake to heart and act upon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house today.ss until noon

>> watch the house live here on c-span when they return at noon. we are also covering today a earing with -- >> it's time to create new jobs, to build and rebuild industry, and give the american people room to do what they do best and that can only be done with a tax program which provides incentive to increase productivity for both workers and industry. our proposal is for a 10% congressional record -- across-the-board cut every year for three years for tax rates for all individual income tax payers making a total cut of 30%. this three-year reduction will also apply to the tax on unearned income, leading toward an eventual elimination of the differential between the tax on earned and unearned income. i would hope that we could be retroactive with this, but as it stands the effective starting date for these 10% personal income tax rate reductions will

call for as of july 1 of this year. gain let me remind you while this 30% reduction will leave the taxpayers with $500 more in their pockets over the next five years -- $500 billion more in their pockets over the next five years, it's actually only a reduction in the tax increase already built into the system. unlike some past quote-unquote tax reforms, this is not merely a shift of wealth between different sets of taxpayers. >> find more highlights from 35 years of house floor coverage on our facebook page. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago. and brought to you today as a public service by your television provider. >> secretary of state john kerry is on capitol hill today before the house foreign affairs committee testifying on the president's 2015 state department budget request. he's also expected to face a number of questions on foreign policy issues like ukraine and

syria. we'll have that live on c-span3 at 1:30 eastern. we also want to hear your thoughts on what should u.s. diplomatic priorities be. you can join us on facebook or twitter, the hash tag is c-span chat. at the white house today president obama will sign an order expanding the number of workers eligible for overtime pay. according to the associated press, the rules would be aimed at salary workers who make more than $455 a week, and those working in certain managerial roles. you can follow that live online at c-span.org. we'll take you live now back to the capitol hill. nancy pelosi, the democratic leader, has been speaking with reporters for just under 15 minutes. >> refugees within their own country and pulling in two other countries displaced within their own contry. -- own country. i don't know how somebody could be president of a country if he kills his own people. that's where i come from on

that. i don't think for a moment that this has -- in other words, whatever we can do, whether it's humanitarian assistance, whether it is helping countries that are helping the refugees anti-rest, we have to do everything we can. there is no appetite in our country for boots on the ground. i think that's very, very clear. not to have it slip in terms of a priority because now ukraine has emerged. it's interesting to see what president putin's real motivation is as far as syria and as far as ukraine. >> redline for president obama, but the ongoing -- >> the one success we are having there, not as fast as we would have liked, but the chemical weapons, dismantling of those, it's hard. it takes time. but that is one ray of success

that is there. again, the challenge -- it challenges our conscience, we have limited options, and one of them in my view as far as the public is concerned is to not have boots on the ground. can we get engaged in the fly zone? what other things can we do? we certainly have to give them strong consideration. we met with the king of jordan when he was here a few weeks ago and telling me about the number of refugees in jordan. that's not a very large country, so the percentage, the impact was great there. it's something that i pray about every day. i have so many constituents in france who have families in syria and they have given me all kinds of -- all these things to pray over. so we have it as a priority. it's horrible.

and it's three years. three years. >> you served on on the intelligence committee. the back and forth of your california colleague, dianne feinstein, made serious charges. another member of that committee has said this vote is to confirm brennan was a mistake. was wondering if you think this complicates congress' role in overseeing the c.i.a. do you still have confidence in director brennan? >> let me just say does this complicate our oversight? i think it speaks -- i think the actions that have been taken in the last few days in light of revelations previous to that speak very clearly to the fact that we will not have strong congressional oversight. i have been an advocate for that. one of the longest people, longest tenure in terms of

clearance, as ranking member, leader, and now speaker, and leader, i have very serious concerns about transparency and oversight and the intelligence community honoring its responsibility to congress in that regard. there are many very patriotic americans who are engaged in the intelligence community. for years, decades now i have saluted their service. whatever the decision s. whether it's there the administration, as was the case, and the bush administration, to withhold information from congress, i fought that. but you don't fight it without a price because they come after you. and they don't always tell the truth about it. to place a -- paint everyone with the same

brush. but whatever the situation is, it should be reviewed. i don't think there's any question, i completely agree with senator feinstein that this is a matter of great seriousness. the attitude that the c.i.a. had to the rights of congress and all of this. whatever else there is that should be examined in terms of what happened and when, this may be one of the healthiest things that we can do. i know one thing, whatever it was, the intelligence community writes a report on it, they read a book on it, all of a sudden it becomes conventional i wouldn't say wisdom, but conventional gossip that this is what happened there, and we really have to have the ground truth. president obama on his first day in office stopped the

controversial interrogations that this is about. i don't know -- to tell you the truth, i haven't really seen much of secretary -- director brennan's statements on this, but what i have seen are befuddling toe me. i have -- to me. i have high regard for him. probably be seeing him over the st. patrick holiday and maybe get an attitude, where he thinks this is going, because that's usually when i see him on st. patrick's day, mr. brennan. but it is -- i don't sit in on the committees and at the hearings. but i a wlute senator feinstein. you take on the intelligence community, you're a person of courage. and she does not do that lightly. not without evidence. when i say evidence, documentation of what it is that she is putting forth. so it will be interesting --

whatever it is. whatever it is all of us should look to see this is a really important element of our national security. this is how we would present a violent resolution of conflict and war. this is important to our country and has to be honest. it has to be honest. and from what i know, from what senator said and what you have written, it's pretty appalling what is being alleged or charged , and whatever it is we have to remove all doubt that congress, i say all the time to the administration, four or five of them over time, the administration is the custodian of intelligence information. it is not the owner, they are custodians but it belongs to us as well. and we need to see the

intelligence. you're asking me the final question, struck a chord on something that i have been concerned about for a long time, and that is congress -- the white house, especially during the bush administration and the claim they made about w.m.d. in iraq as the basis of our going to work, if we are to make decisions about budgets, if we are to make decision abouts priorities and spending on the intelligence budget, if we are to have accountability for ourselves, of ourselves we have to know what the information is. and they have to share it with us. thank you-all very much. happy st. patrick's day.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> just an update, speaker boehner will be talking to reporters shortly. we'll have coverage of that later in our program schedule. go live now over to the senate foreign relations committee. they are just gaveling in, or will be shortly, for a hearing from proponents and opponents of the proposed project, the keystone x.l. pipeline, that would stretch from canada down to the gulf of mexico. a number of witnesses testifying, including former marine corps general james jones and the former massa climate scientist, james hanson, just about to get under way. live here on c-span.

>> this hearing of the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. we welcome distinguished panel of experts and advocates to address something that has long been an issue of practical and political concern for many in this town and across the nation. and today we are here to shed more light than heat i hope on the issue. hear the facts and rationale on both sides. the proposed keystone x.l. pipeline cross border segment would link morgan, montana with the canadian border to steel city, nebraska. it would have a capacity of 830,000 barrels of tar sands per day. later this year the state department will determine whether the project is in the national interest, and that is the question we will hear testimony about today from our four panelists. i hope this can be a balanced, thoughtful hearing. a hearing that puts aside some of the politics that have

surrounded this debate and deal with the underlying question of what is in our national interest. i hope we can build a record on both sides of this debate that may not result in agreement but may result in more agreed upon facts. proponents of the pipeline point to jobs, economic development, and energy security as reasons why the pipeline should be approved. and claim that the alleged harm to the environment is overstated. opponents raise climate change concerns, concerns about potential spills, and down play any energy security or economic advantages of the pipeline. that's not to say i don't have my own views, i do. but i want to hear the facts from our witnesses and have a full throated open discussion. before i conclude i want to introduce into the record a letter written on behalf of the 500,000 members of the labors international union of north america, signed by their distinguished general president,

terry o'sullivan. the letter strongly supports the keystone x.l. pipeline, and if there is no objection to that, i'll enter it into the record. president o'sullivan has made it very clear about his support of the pipeline, and we offered him an opportunity to include his position on behalf of his members and the record. i called for this hearing because this committee has been a bastion of bipartisanship when it comes to such issues, and with the help of senator corker, the ranking member, i know we can have a rational discussion today. senator corker and i believe this is the debate we are having and i want to thank the ranking member for helping put this hearing together and the four witnesses before us today to take time to provide their insights. with that let me turn to the ranking member, senator corker, for his remarks. >> thank you. thanks to all of our witnesses for being here. i understand we have two very divergent views on keystone, and i think we can all learn from both of those views. i want to thank you again for the markup we had yesterday and

the strong bipartisanship shown with the support of ukraine. it's unfortunate the administration declined to testify here today, very unfortunate. i understand they do not want to prejudice the outcome of the national interest determination process they are going through right now, but do i think it would have been important and is important that they explain to us all of the factors they will consider in making this decision. i hope today we can look at past determinations. i think that will be very important to us, and circumstances and come up with a clearer picture of what it should be. both sides of this issue would agree in some respects that the united states national interest is indeed -- the administration is not going to be able to be indesistive -- indecisive at the ends of this process which hopefully will end soon. to me the link between the completion of the keystone

pipeline and ensuring our energy security, thus our national security, is clear and compelling. despite years of rigorous review and strong public support for completion of the pipeline, the administration is now the only thing standing in the way of thousands of american jobs with the potential for many more, and access to a large supply of north american energy. based on what i understand from similar pipeline decisions for secretary kerry or the president to determine that keystone is not in our national interest, they would in effect have to embrace the idea that this single pipeline, not just fossil fuels in general, but this single pipeline would have a clear demonstrable contribution to global -- to the global climate catastrophe. such a determination would seem far beyond the bounds of what the process has been in the past and what we would expect it to

be now. the president's apparent climate standard for the approval of the pipeline announced in a speech last summer appears to ignore the findings of exhaustive, concrete environmental and economic development analysis that demonstrate the benefits we would reap from this project, which would also strengthen ties with canada, our largest trading partner. in fact the state department has already determined that keystone is unlikely to affect the rate demand - oil sands or for heavy crude. therefore when compared to other forms of transporting oil, the pipeline is likely to provide a safer and more environmentally friendly method. i'm not sure how refusing to complete this project will do anything to lessen our nation's dependence on fossil fuels. so, i look forward to hearing your thoughts on this and other aspects of the issue, and i want

to thank the chairman again for calling this hearing. >> thank you, senator corker. let me introduce our panelists. general james jones is currently the president of the jones group international. over his distinguished 40-year career in the marine corps, he served as supreme aled lied commander in europe, 32nd commandant of the marine corps. following his retirement, general jones served as special envoy for middle east security and as the president's national security advisors. we welcome you, general, back. thank you for your service to our country. michael bruin is the executive director of the sierra club, and formerly of the rainforest action network. he's a fellow new jerseyan and we welcome him before the committee to listen to his insights. dr. james hanson is an adjunct professor and director of the earth institute program on

climate science awareness and solutions at columbia university. for more than three decades dr. hanson served as the head of nasa's goddard institute for space studies, and his scholarly work has made him a leader in the field of climate science. will he me say in the past both dr. hansen and mr. brune have been both arrested in protest to the keystone pipeline. i can't guarantee it, but i hope this proves to be a more comfortable experience. finally, our final panelist today is karen alderman, president and c.e.o. of the institute for 21st century at the u.s. chamber of commerce. she previously served as assistant secretary for policy and international affairs at the u.s. department of energy and deputy assistant administrator for latin america at usaid. we thank you for joining us. your full statements will be included in the record, without objection. and i ask you to summarize your statements in around five

minutes or so-so that the members can have a dialogue with you. i'll ask you to testify in the order in which i introduced you. general jones. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member corker, it's a pleasure to be here today. members of the committee. it's an honor to be here to share my views with you about the national interest at stake and the keystone x.l. pipeline demmings. thank you for making my -- determination. thank you for making my fuller testimony a part of the record. if i could i would also recommend that we provide for the committee's interest a two-year study done by the bipartisan energy council where i co-chaired the study with senator trent lott, senator byron dorgan, and former e.p.a. administrator, bill riley, which was a very bipartisan effort on our energy fuhr. mr. chairman, you requested that i testify today on the u.s. geostrategic and national

security interest associated with the approval of the pipeline. interests that in my view are intrinsic to america's energy security and leadership in this century. i hope that my testimony will be useful to the committee's deliberation on both issues as they will largely determine the direction of our nation's future, a cause to which, as you pointed out, i dedicated my 42 years ever professional life, both in and out of uniform. it is both significant and i think highly commendable that the senate foreign relations committee is holding a hearing focused on an oil pipeline. i think it speaks volumes about energy's role in modern international affairs. the message that resonates especially powerfully today in light of the events playing out in the ukraine. the fact that energy security is vital to a nation's domestic economy is well established. the crimean crisis, however, is proving once again that energy security is also a central pillar to global stability.

this current crisis serves as one more example of how tension and rivalry over access to energy plays out in conflicts across the international landscape. mr. chairman, i'm passionate about energy because there is no doubt in my mind that it's a frontline 21st century national security issue. the reality i came to appreciate in my service as commandant of the marine corps of nato commander, national security advisor. we should understand clearly that mr. putin's incursion in the crimea is among other things about exercising political power through the control of energy. and about brandishing the threat of energy scarcity to intimidate and manipulate vulnerable populations. for the very sim purposes, the iranian regime habitually threatens the 234r0e of energy through the straits of hormuz, in venezuela, hugo chavez used energy bonds to keep his population in check for decades. it's also the same reason that saddam hussein invaded kuwait, sparking 20 years ever

international tension and conflict, and why one of osama bin laden's last decrees to his forces was to attack the global energy infrastructure. energy scarcity is a boaten strategic weapon. the greater the gap between -- potent strategic weapon. the greater the gap, the more destructive that weapon becomes. the difference between mr. putin and us, however, is that he wields energy as a weapon to achieve his geostrategic goals, while we look to energy flow in free markets as a means of promoting international peace, prosperity, and economic stability. less than a week ago, four nato allies from the eastern part of europe, hungary, poland, slovakia, and the czech republic, appealed to the congress of the united states to protect them from russian domination not by requesting troops or arms, but by sending energy. this is the future we are facing, and fortunately we are blessed with a capacity to rise to the challenge if we choose to do so.

how many americans are aware that within the next year the united states will surpass russia as the world's largest producer of oil and gas combined? we can be sure mr. putin is well aware of that fact. what a stunning change of fortune for our country. whose energy narrative over the past 40 years has been dominated by terms such as dependence, vulnerability, and peak oil. the u.s. is on track to produce nearly 10 million barrels of oil a day by 2016, equal to that of saudi arabia. the story, however, does not end at our borders. our neighbors to the north and south are also blessed with energy abundance, and with the proper revolve and strategic, north america can and in my view should become a global energy hub. energy supplied to europe can serve as a linchpin in the revitalization of the transatlantic dialogue with nato, and as a consequence to

mr. putin's aggression in the crimea. members of the committee within our reach is a his historic opportunity to harness energy to solve our country's most significant challenges, insecurity, trade imbalance, and devastating national debt, all of which erode our strength and global leader shfment but -- leadership. but we cannot do this if we continue to say no to the infrastructure requirements necessary to develop and utilize these resources. so i would like to pose a pretty fundamental question. why would the united states spend billions of dollars and place our military personnel at risk to ensure the flow of energy half a world away but neglect an opportunity to enable the flow of energy in our very own back beyond a reasonable doubt, creating -- backyard, creating jobs, tax revenue, and security? i both respect and appreciate that climate change concerns weigh heavily on this issue and

on the minds of us all as they should. we should not have a discussion on energy without discussing climate impact. at a later date, if you would like, i look forward to testify on the importance of tackling climate issues in a strategic, comprehensive, and realistic way through global solutions to what is clearly a global challenge. but in the meantime, i would simply raise two considerations. canceling the keystone x.l. pipeline does not mean that the oil from the canadian oil sands deposits will go undeveloped, sparing the world some modest incremental carbon emissions. the prime minister of canada has promised that the country's oil sands will be developed should the keystone not be approved. in fact, if the keystone pipeline is not approved, the perverse result would be that the hydrocarbons will go to countries of very poor environmental records rather than the united states where our regulations and comprehensive --

are both comprehensive, strong, and enforced. second, in a more overarching but no less significant point, of this i am convinced, if america does not remain prosperous and strong, it imperative dependent on energy security, we will not be in a position to engineer the low-carbon energy solutions the world needs. nor will we be able to exercise the global leadership necessary to answer the climate change. and challenge. the decision object the pipeline is a litmus test of whether america is serious about national, regional, and global energy security and the world is watching. america's workers and consumers are watching, investors and job creators are watching, our allies who need a strong united states and reliable energy partner are watching. the developing world which requires global energy abundance to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty is watching, and the international bullies who wish to use energy scarcity as a weapon against us all are watching intently.

so if we want to make mr. putin's day and strengthen his hand, we should reject keystone. if we want to gain an important measure of national energy security, jobs, tax revenue, and prosperity to advance our work on the spectrum of energy solutions that don't rely on carbon, then it should be approved. a we need more than symbolic overpoliticized debates on particular projects is a more strategic approach to u.s. energy and climate polcy, one that promotes energy diversity, sustainability, productivity, and innovation. and we need to develop the vast array of energy potential that we are blessed to have at our national disposal, bearing in mind the environmental impact on our -- of our actions. mr. chairman, once again allegations are being made both here and abroad that the united states is a nation in decline. my definition of that -- >> i'll ask you to sum up. >> i'm summing up. >ure' well over five minutes. >> my definition is that a

nation is decline when it can no longer bring itself to do those things that deep down it knows it needs to do in its own good. as a national and international security issue, building this pipeline is one of those things that we should do for our own good. i thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. >> thank you, mr. brune. >> mr. chairman, ranking member corker, 8 -- corker, members of the committee. it's an honor to appear before you today. >> is your microphone on? >> mr. chairman. ranking member corker, members of the committee, it's an honor to appear before you today to discuss whether keystone x.l. is in our national interest. i'm michael brune, executive director of the sierra club. the sierra club and more than two million people who submitted comments last week to the state department know that this pipeline is not in our national interest. the keystone x.l. tar sands pipeline would cut through more than 1,000 miles of american farms and ranches, carrying oil that is more toxic, more

corrosive, more carbon intensive, and more difficult to clean up than conventional oil. all the way to the gulf where most of it would be exported. like many of you, i'm a parent. and i'm deeply concerned about the world we are leaving for our children. one lesson my wife and i try to teach our kids is the need to set goals and stay focused as they strife to achieve them. our country has a clear, science-based goal to limit carbon pollution. we must keep this in mind in recognizing that achieving that goal is incompatible with permitting this pipeline. none of the scenarios in the state department's analysis show how keystone x.l. could be built in way that ensures our nation can meet those climate goals. in fact, keystone x.l. would significantly exacerbate climate pollution because it would increase substantially the development of tar sands in alberta that you see here. a report last week from carbon tracker found that keystone x.l.

would spur additional production of roughly 500,000 barrels per day. the emissions equivalent of building 46 new coal-fired power plants. i'd like this report be added to the record, please. >> without objection. >> although the climate impacts of tar sands are sufficient reasons to reject this project, there are others a. few of which i'll cite. first, any spill from this pipeline could be catastrophic. transporting tar sands crude into the united states poses a heightened risk to communities and their air and water than conventional oil. diluted it's heavier and more toxic than conventional crude. when it spills in a waterway, it sinks. just one tar sands spill in michigan felled more than 35 miles of river. after 3 1/2 years and more than a billion dollars, it still has not been cleaned up. if you take a look here this image of a neighborhood in mayflower, arkansas, where an

exxonmobil pipeline ruptured killing spilling more than 7,000 barrels of tar sands into residents' back yards and driveways. even without spills, keystone x.l. would risk the health and livelihood of communities living near each state of the projects. petcoke is a byproduct of the praugs and a major health hazard for u.s. communities. it contains high level of toxins, including mercury, lead, arsenic, and chromium. huge petcoke piles from refining processes have begun to appear in cities like chicago and detroit. furthermore, keystone x.l. would not even benefit american consumers. this oil is intended for export. keystone x.l. would deliver tar sands to refineries on the gulf coast that already export most of their refined products, have increased exports nearly 200% in the past five years, and are

planning to increase these exports further into the future. keystone x.l. would also be a threat to national security, because it would facilitate the development of one of the world's most carbon intensive sources of oil, it's important to krt impacts that these additional greenhouse gas emissions would have on people worldwide and on america's national security. since 2010, key national security reports have indicated that floods, droughts, and rising seas brought on by a destabilized climate in places of geostrategic importance to the u.s., multiply threats anti-risks for americans working in those areas. climate disruption directly affects our armed forces. admiral samuel locklear, head of the u.s. military pacific command, believe the single greatest threat to forces is the instability sparked by climate disruption. finally, clean energy will power a new american century, let's not delay.

america is the land of innovators. today the factories of detroit, the laboratories of silicon valley, and the next generation of american consumers are already investing in and profiting from clean energy technology. thanks to fuel efficiency standards, gasoline demand in the united states is decreasing, and projections show decreases through 2040 and beyond. investing in the clean energy economy is supported by american businesses, american workers, and all who care about clean air, clean water, and a stable climate. that's a win-win-win scenario. compare this to keystone x.l. which jeopardizes our drinking water, farm lapd, climate, and health. -- farmland, climate, and health. the sad truth is it's all risk and no reward. secretary kerry has called climate disruption the world's -- quote the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction. last week he instructed all u.s.

diplomats and employees around the world to lead by example through strong action at home and abroad to fight the climate crisis. america can lead on climate by saying no to this polluting pipeline and by saying yes to clean energy. thank you. >> thank you. doctor hansen. >> thank you for the opportunity to discuss climate and energy and the significance of the keystone pipeline. my first chart shows the carbon content of conventional oil, gas, and coal. and the unconventional fossil fuels, including tar sands. the purple portions have been burned already. the science is crystal clear, if we want to avoid leaving young people a climate system that's spiraling out of their control, the additional fuel burned must be less than that already pursuant.

that means we must phase out coleburning and leave most of the unconventional -- coal burning and leave most of the unconventional fossil fuels in the ground. tar sands are among the dirtiest and most carbon intensive fuels. it makes no sense to set up a system to exploit them in a major way. my second chart shows that china ask now the largest emitter of carbon dioxide. the pie chart on the left. however, it is the cumulative emissions that drive climate change, the pie chart on the right. the united states is by far the largest emitter. we have burned our fair share of the carbon budget and some of china's and india's. we are all on the same boat. we will either sink together or

find a way to sail together. my next chart shows that fossil of our ovide over 85% energy. nonhydrorenewables provide only 3% of our energy in the u.s. and the world. so how can we possibly phase down carbon emissions? my next chart shows the two things that we can do. we can reduce our energy intensity, and we can reduce the carbon intensity of the energy. we have been reducing the energy intensity, the amount of energy per g.d.p., improving efficiency, and appropriate

policies can further improve that. however the principal requirement is to reduce the carbon intensity. over the next few decades, we must drive the carbon intensity down near zero. there is one country that has done a good job, sweden. sweden has decarbonized its electricity, which is provided by nuclear power and hydropower. they have one more big step to make, to make liquid fuels from electricity. that's actually not difficult, but they are a small country and have not developed that industry. why is the rest of the world not driving carbon intensity down? it is because fossil fuels appear to the consumer to be the cheapest energy. fossil fuels are not really the cheapest energy.

they are not required to pay for the human health costs of air pollution and water pollution or for the costs of climate change. the public picks up the tab. so the required policy is to put a gradually rising fee on carbon , collected from fossil fuel companies at the first domestic sale, at the mine or port of entry, and 100% of the money should be distributed to the public, equal amounts to all legal residents. so the person who does better than average in limiting his carbon footprint will make money. this will provide a huge incentive for individuals and a huge incentive for entrepreneurs and business people. it will spur our economy, make it more efficient, and it will modernize our infrastructure and create hundreds of times more jobs than building a pipeline to transport the dirtiest fuel on

earth. with a fee of $10 per ton of co-2, rising $10 each year, after 10 years it will reduce our fossil fuel use almost 30%. according to a simulation, economic simulations by the carbon tax center. it will reduce our oil use in 10 years three times more than the volume of the keystone pipeline. george shultz and conservative economist -- in fact most economists agree that a rising revenue neutral carbon fee is the way to solve the climate and the energy problems. in fact, it's an opportunity to make our economy more efficient. an important point is that such legislation, i think, needs to be introduced by conservatives because i'm afraid liberals will try to take part of the money to make the government bigger. not one dime should go to the

government. 100% should go to the public. now, i would like to enter in the record a specific one-page description of this fee and dividend which is written by jim milner, a boston businessman, he gave me a copy yesterday. i think it's a nice, simple summary of the dividend system. one pinal comment that i would like to make, it is crucial we begin to work with china. to solve both their air pollution problem and their carbon emission problem. china is now contemplating and aking plans for a massive coal gasification operation. hundreds of times bigger, copied some degree on the coal gasification plan on the midwest that jimmy carter started, but

on a massive scale. we can't -- if that happens, it will be very difficult if not impossible for our children to control climate change. we need to work with them. and work with them on clean energies, including nuclear power. where we still have the best capabilities. with our university system and our free enterprise system, we should work with them and help them get clean energy, because it's in our benefit as well as theirs. >> thank you. ms. harper. >> chearm menendez and ranking member corker and all the members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. my 2040 global energy command will grow by over 50%, by 90% will be in the developing world and we'll be well on our way to adding two billion people to this planet. china, india, after carks and the middle east will be growing in their energy command and traditional suppliers will be looking to sell to them and not us.

our own government has concluded by 2040, 80% of the world's energy demand will be met by fossil fuels. that means we have to do more here at home to meet our energy demands. the unrest in the ukraine has shown that energy vullerblet equals geopolitical vulnerability. despite and crease in supply here coupled with modulating demand, we'll still import 40% of our oil by 2020. we can choose the status quote by relying on oil from venezuela which has people today protesting in their streerkts or from places far away that don't share our values or democratic principles. in 2002, north america has 35% of the world's reserves, 18% the following year when oil sands from canada were added, and ow we believe that could even be tripled. however the global share of production of oil from those countries that are considered not free or partly free by freedom house has jumped from 65% in 1985 to 77% in 2012.

so we have a choice. we can choose to embellish the leg kwlacy of hugo chavez or ignore the geopolitical implication of energy, or we can choose to have a secure and stable supply from can in a dean develop our own vast resources here. let's not forget that k.x.l. will transport u.s. crude. canada is our most important energy supplier already and one of our most stalwart allies. they were there for us right after hurricanes katrina and rita, they accompanied us into war against terrorism. they have made a choice to develop their oil sands. it is in their national interest and they will do it one way or another. increasing our existing deep relationship with our long-standing ally canada, coupled with reforms in mexico and production here at home, we could shift the gravity of the oil market to north america. jobs, the keystone pipeline will create 42,000 jobs, and for those who say those are temporary, they don't understand

the constructiontry, or they are simply against the $2 billion that will be put in labor's pockets. or they are against the $3.4 billion in additional g.d.p. for our economy that is sputtering. or they are against the pipeline being one of the largest property taxpayers in montana, south dakota, nebraska which will support schools, fire, police services, and infrastructure. today the u.s. and canada enjoy a very robust trading relationship and peaceful border. i don't think we have the fear of the canadian mounties coming in and circling our bases, but equally that trade relationship pays off. for every dollar we spend buying a canadian good, 89 cents return to the united states. that's money that stays here for the benefit of our economy. that is not like our other oil suppliers. only 27 cents comes back here from oil we buy from venezuela. on the environment. i would suggest that every one of us here in this room is an environmentalist.

we enjoy and like and support clean air, water, and land. and the state department has concluded some very important things in its review. number one, the keystone pipeline will have a negligible impact on the environment. today the oil sands production accounts for only .1% of global greenhouse gas emissions. and their carbon footprint is going down. and in 2011 it is now equal to the venezuelan crude that it seeks to displace. number two, the oil sands will be developed with or without the keystone pipeline. our government has concluded that. the canadian government has concluded that. and they are now looking east, west, and south for options, and produces are investing to make that a reality. and third, alternatives to the keystone pipeline would have a higher emissions profile than the pipeline itself. so put plainly given our practical energy reality, if you are in support of the environment, you are in support of the pipeline. so in conclusion, the five-year review process has been

exhaustive, hearing from people and organizations across this country. it has included field hearings and cabinet agencies' input. it's received input from the people on this panel. and the conclusion is clear, keystone is in our national interest as was its predecessor, the keystone pipeline. keystone is good for the economy, jobs, tax revenue, property revenue, investment, and trade. it is good for our energy security, adding a more stable and secure source of energy. and the state department has concluded that the keystone pipeline will have a negligible impact on the environment, their words. and that oil sands will be developed one way or another. k.x.l. and more broadly developing the resources here in america will have a significant fenth on improving our national security -- effect on improving our national security and adding more democratic molecules to our mix. 55% of the american people support this pipeline. we live in a dangerous and precareous time. approving the pipeline will

strengthen our economy, decrease our energy risk, respect our commitment to the environment, while also furthering our trade and bilateral relationship with our democratic ally to the north. the keystone x.l. pipe lin is in our national interest and in the words of canada's prime minister, is a, quote, no-brainer. thank you very much. >> thank you all for your testimony. several witnesses have asked for documents to be entered into the record. and without objection, they shall be included. let me start off. mr. brune, i understand the seriousness of climate change. i have seen its effects with superstorm sandy, devastated our home state of new jersey. i personally believe in acting on climate by putting a price on carbon. and i support the president's plan to cut carbon emissions from power plants. however, it seems strange to regulate carbon by means of transportation, which is what denying the keystone pipeline

would amount to. why do we not limit the amount of carbon on roads leading to power plants -- we don't limit the amount of carbon roads leading to power plants, so why should we regulate carbon through this pipeline? you reach put your microphone on. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the reasons to oppose this pipeline are as varied as the reasons to promote fuel efficiency in our cars and trucks. for the pipeline, again, we'll be -- we would be taking oil from the most carbon intensive fuel source on the planet, taking it all the way through the contry, most to be exported. this is a fuel source that has been documented to be much more carbon intensive than conventional oil. but it's also a fuel source that has through experience we have seen polluted american waterways, and pose add significant risk to air quality across the country. when we have policy decisions before us where we have a choice between putting $7 billion into this pipeline or investing instead in clean energy and fuel source that is would create more

jobs, it's incumbent upon us to think both for what would strengthen our economy today, but would also protect and strengthen our economy long into the future. so from my perspective this is not a step to regulate carbon, it's a step that could be taken -- rejecting this pipeline is a step that could be taken to promote clean energy and energy efficiency. >> what about does this continue on the mode of transportation versus the other issues which i generally agree with you, the state department's final e.i.s. with the pipeline expansion concluded if the pipeline expansion is blocked, producers are forced to ship the oil by rail or truck instead, overall transportation emissions could be greater than that of the pipeline by 20% to 42%, and would likely result in additional accidents. is approving the pipeline actually more environmentally sound and safer than the alternatives? >> that is what the state department concluded.

>> i'm sorry, i wasn't asking you. i know you said that. referring to mr. brune, you made that comment. i expounded upon it. >> we believe it's a false choice. what has been proven is that shipping tar sands oil by rail is not safe. we have seen more accidents by rail in the last year than we have in the past previous decades. what's also been droven is shipping tar sands oil through pipelines is not safe. the first tar sands pipeline leaked 12 times, spilled 12 times in the first 12 months. the choice is not whether to accept the increased risk through rail or to accept increased risk through pipeline, but whether to take this oil out of the ground to begin with. the ipcc, world's top climate scientists have said that in order to keep global warming below 2 degrees celsius, or p.6 degrees parne height -- 3.6 degrees fahrenheit, we have to keep 2/p of our fossil fuel

reserves worned the -- 2/3 of our fossil fuel reserves around the world in the ground. that's a order for the global economy and american commifment the best way to do that is to start with the most carbon intensive fuel sources such as the tar sands up in canada. >> >> we break away from this hearing with the reminder you can continue to watch online on c-span.org. u.s. house gaveling in momentarily. they'll finish work on a bill that requires the justice department to inform congress with the administration decides not to enforce a federal law. they also today will take up a water rights bill. you'll hear debate today on the so-called doc fix, the payment, medicare payment to doctors. that will be part of the rule debate coming up shortly on the house floor. live coverage here on c-span. t in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray.

gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. in this chamber, where the people's house gathers, we pause to offer you gratitude for the gift of this good land on which we live and for this great nation which you have inspired in developing over so many years. continue to inspire the american people that through the difficulties of these days we might keep liberty and justice alive in our nation and in the world. bless the members of the assembly with the wisdom they need to conduct the nation's business with an eye toward the benefit of all, especially those most in need. bless as well the citizens of ukraine whose prime minister visits the congress today. may our nation be a good friend to that nation during these turbulent times and may peace

prevail in that part of the world. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlelady from california, ms. brownley. ms. brownley: please place your hand over your heart and repeat after me. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. >> i rise in memory of -- in honor of the memory of captain

james cohen. he was born in ohio in 1933 and died september 9 last year. he grew up in price hill, atended elder high school and was a graduate of xavier university. he led a distinguished life and an honorable one as a devoted husband and father and accomplished naval officer. mr. chabot: as officer on the u.s.s. gaudal canal, he oversaw recovery of the apollo 9 space capsule, and served at pearl harbor and had responsibility for anti-submarine warfare in the pacific and indian oceans he epitomized the term america's greatest generation. our country has benefited greatly from his service and as american well, owe him a debt of gratitude. full military honors at arlington national cemetery for captain cohen will take place on march 24. well done, captain cohen, and may you rest in peace.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i rise to ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> today i want to speak about a case the supreme court is going to hear in a week, the hobby lobby case. as a doctor i took an olte to provide my patients with the best medical advice possible and empower them to make decision that impact their lives. mr. berah: women should be free to make -- mr. bera: women should be free to make the choices that are best for them. allowing bosses to pick and choose their health care and the health care for their employees sets a very dangerous precedent that could have far-reaching consequences. that's why the hobby lobby case that will be argued before the supreme court late they are month is so important. c.e.o. david green may oppose birth control and that's his personal decision but individual hobby lobby employees have their own moral

and religious views and shouldn't have to subscribe to his. this case isn't about the rights of corporate c.e.o.'s, it's about the rights of workers and patients everywhere. it's about the individual freedom to choose and make your own health care decisions. we need to stop bosses and out of touch politicians who want to come into our exam room and make those health care digs. let's keep bosses out of the exam room and allow women to make the decisions that impact their own life. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> when the federal government intervenes like obamacare, we end up with a celebrity in chief who markets his bill on comedy shows instead of taking what he things --

needs. to mr. williams: they've enrolled 4.2 million, this is miserably short of the goal to goal 7.2 million -- -- to enroll seven million people by the end of the month. this law was designed to ensure -- insure the uninsured but it's fail everything single way. t's not helping those it was supposed to help and hurting those who had coverage in the first place. the president needs to place the will of americans before his own agenda. may god bless america new york god we trust, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

this -- ms. brownley: this woman's history month we learn that women continue to struggle with long-term unemployment. long-term unemployment among omen increased from 34.8% in january to 37.7% in february. according to a recent pew research center study, women are the sole or primary breadwinner in four in every 10 american households with children. when women who have jobs -- when women who have jobs only receive 77 cents to every dollar a man makes, when 70% of americans in poverty are women and children in a country where women out of the gate start out behind, refusing to extend long-term employment compensation to those who have looked for a job but cannot find one is particularly hurtful. for all these reasons, we must renew emergency unemployment

compensation because when women succeed, ventura county succeeds, when ventura county succeeds, america succeeds. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlewoman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm here to acknowledge the wichita state university men's basketball team and its unparalleled success this year. mr. pompeo: the shockers are the only team in the nation that remains undefeated. they're taking more win into the ncaa basketball tournament than any team in the history of division i basketball in the ncaa. our head coach this year, greg marshall, was just named national coach of the year. play thornse team say they have not played a single game that's tougher than any of their practices and their play prove this is a team trumps individual every time. it's said that some of these

players aren't five-star recruits and that may be true but they are five-star human beings. they come from places like rockford, illinois, scott city, kansas, they come with no silver spoons. they're grinders. they're hard workers. they're scrappy and they're fighters with big hearts. they reflect our town and the best of america and we love them. god speed to them, go shocks. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. mrs. beatty: as our economy continues to experience high levels of unemployment -- ms. fudge: now is not the time to further decimate vital assistance to those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. i will not abandon two million

americans including 200,000 veterans. we must give them a hand up. yesterday i signed a discharge petition to force action on extending unemployment insurance benefits. a move supported by more than 3/4 of the american people. additionally, nationally, there are three unemployed people for each job created. for long-term unemployed there's just a 12% chance of finding a new job in any given month. congress must extend unemployment benefits to help keep america's families out of poverty as they seek jobs. each week we fail to act, another 72,000 people lose their benefits. we must act now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lankford: when a family runs a business by the

principles of their faith which used to be protected in america, can a president step i don't agree with that. hob bee lobby is a family owned business that doesn't want washington to be their boss. they believe abortion takes the life of a child and every child deserves a chance of life. with a ployee disagrees real jus faith, do they have to changer their religious faith. you now have to have the same religious convictions as the president of the united states, if you don't, you'll be fined until you change your faith practice. days ago, the president spoke about the cornerstone right about the free expression of religion. does that include americans who believe that children are a

gift of god and they should be nurtured and cared for, not discarded as tissue. washington is not the boss of every american. our constitution matters. freedom of religion matters, and quite frankly, children matter. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from oklahoma has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. on december 28, emergency unemployment benefits for americans were cut off and since then, two million americans have lost their essential lifeline and have been missing their rent payments, missing their mortgage payments, trying to keep the house warm and put food on the table. mr. kildee: congress has failed to act. what's particularly concerning to me is some of the rhetoric i hear would imply that those unemployed americans are

seeking benefits because they don't want to work. in fact, yesterday, i read a quote from the budget committee chairman and i'll try to get this correct, saying that in america there is a culture in our inner cities of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work. that is not the problem. the problem is a lack of opportunity. so i'll take the chairman at his word that he was intending to say, so therefore we need to fully fund after school programs. we need to fully fund pre-k programs, we need to fully fund summer youth employment so that those young people do have a chance to experience the benefit and value of work and that we provide a safety net to make sure that when they are not working they don't lose their house, their car, and their family. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minnesota. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> i rise to recognize the dead cailted men and women of colorado who helped recover from the floods last december. mr. gardner: the floods redestroying the lives of our neighbors and destroyed homes. our friends and neighbors had their lives changed forever and are still putting the pieces back together and rebuilding. in the bake wake of the flood, local and state officials, private and public businesses, fema personnel and dedicated volunteers worked tirelessly to help coloradans get life back to normal. while the recovery effort remains unfinished and won't be complete for some time, we are on a positive path forward. if it hadn't been for the committed people on the ground, colorado would not be on that path today asmeds with all natural -- disasters and tragedies of the magnitude, coloradans rallied together and helped the recovery effort. we still have more work to do

but i want to recognize all those who joined together to help these efforts and helped colorado in a desperate time of need. as a fifth generation coloradan, i offer my deep appreciation on behalf of the state. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to honor the chung lee, cholas an officer who served his community he served in the van nuys division and later in the hollywood division where he was assigned to a patrol car. mr. schiff: he had worked as a field training officer before returning to patrol in the hollywood division in 2008. in 16 years of service he received more than 0 commendations but even as -- more than 70 commendation bus even as a police officer, family came first, who had a wife -- he had a wife and two

young daughters. tragically and much too soon he, passed away when a truck hit his patrol car in beverly hills. we depend on the bravery and dedication of police officers every moment of every day and we often forget the dangers and challenges they face on our behalf. i ask all members to join me in expressing our condolences to the lee family and the entire lapd and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank youer -- thank you so much, mr. speaker. amos rojas jr. was sworn in yesterday as the u.s. marshal for our southern district of florida. a consummate public servant, marshall served 24 years of his career with the florida department of law enforcement, including eight years as the special agent in charge of the miami region's opoprations center.

he was most recently deputy director of the south florida money laundering strike force within the miami-dade county state attorney's office. the u.s. marshal service traces its roots back to the judiciary act of 1789 under president george washington, and has played many important roles throughout our nation's history. i am proud to see marshal rojas join this elite and storied law enforcement agency. congratulations again to south florida's new top cop. thank you, mr. speaker, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition. >> speak mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. slaughter: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the supreme court will soon hear oral organizements in the case commonly referred to as hobby lobby. the outcome of this case will

determine whether or not a for-profit company has the right to limit a female employee's access to health care under the guise of religious freedom. already the supreme court has wrongly declared that corporations have a right to freedom of speech as determined in the case of citizens united. in just a few short years this ruling has led to a flood of undisclosed money and to our elections and corrupted our political system. corporations' latest attempts to secure the actually protected rights of citizens is equally as dangerous. only a living, breathing woman should have the right to decide how and when she wants to have a family. and regardless of her decision, that choice belongs to her and not to the corporation for which she works. millions of women depend upon birth control pills for reasons beyond preventing unintended pregnancies. including a 13-year-old girl in my district who would rather be

in her classroom learning but spends lots of time in a doctor's office trying to control uncontrollable bleeding. yet through no fault of her own she finds herself in the doctor's office often and then just recently had to have a blood transfusion. this young woman relies upon birth control medication to droll her -- control her bleeding. medication that her family can only afford because her mother's access to contraceptive care is not violated by her employer. if the supreme court once again interprets our federal laws to grant citizens' freedoms to a corporation, they will directly threaten the rights of this young girl and millions of women around the country. we cannot allow that to happen. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlewoman has long ago expired. ms. slaughter: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition. >> unanimous consent to address

the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in honor the lieutenant nate king of the metenberg police department. just a few days ago he was conducting routine police diswhen a frantic mother drove up and placed a seemingly lifeless baby into his arms. six-month-old lily was choking to death. without losing his cool he quickly began lifesaving measures. soon lily started screaming and scrige. thanks to his efforts, little lily is alive today. even better, the doctors who examine lili that day at the hospital determined she was fine and made a full recovery. on behalf of congress and the people of the north carolina's ninth congressional district, thank you to lieutenant king for you are your exceptional service. you make us all proud. thanks to all the brave men and women of the charlotte mecklenburg police department who face diverse difficult challenges, even placing their lives on the line to serve us

each day. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. capps: i rise today on behalf of the millions of women who now have access to essential preventive health services, including birth control. without financial barriers. nearly every american woman will choose to use birth control at some time in her life. it helps women plan for the time when they are healthy enough and financially ready to start a family. that's better for her and for her family. and that's why the institute of medicine deemed it an essential preventive health service for women. and women across the nation support being available to them with no co-pay. now some women found their bosses think they know better than they do. their c.e.o. has more stake in her health care decisions than her doctor.

this is not right. every woman has the right to be in charge of her body and her health. suggesting otherwise is offensive, out of touch, and out of bounds. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to voice my support for the approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline. as many americans know, this pipeline will provide an immediate boost to our economy and strengthen national security. that's important, ask the ukranians. this pipeline will create over 40,000 jobs, foster a more energy independent north america, bolster our nation's weakened infrastructure system, contribute approximately $3.4 billion to our g.d.p., and generate needed tax revenues in several states. mr. weber: after thorough review

of the pipeline proposal, the state department determined it would have no significant negative environmental impact. the department's inspector general also concluded that the pipeline's environmental impact study was sound. this is the latest in a slew of reports rejecting the administration's excuses on keystone. mr. speaker, this president has vowed that this will be a year of action. house republicans urge him to act. he should immediately approach the keystone x.l. pipeline and put americans back to work. i'm randy weber, there you have it. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. johnson: , i rise today to bring attention to the congressional digital day of action. on hobby lobby supreme court case. thanks to the affordable care

act, 27 million women have access to insurance covered contraceptives. nearly two million of those women come from my home state of texas. unfortunately, hobby lobby, the largest importer in my district, arserts that employers should control the choices of women who have access to contraception and preventive care. however, 70% of americans disagree with this heinous assertion. while individuals this their own religious beliefs and consciouses, business that is employ thousands of hardworking americans do not the implications that a boss could potentially decide what health care treatments any employee can receive are more far-reaching than just contraceptive care. what can be next? an employer denying coverage of routine immunizations or

vaccinations because of religious belief? it is offensive that an employer believes they have the right to make these personal decisions for their employees. i urge my colleagues to stand up and fight against this discriminatory action taken by hobby lobby. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlewoman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. a headline in today's "roll call" read, quote, white house, democrats, cry foul over g.o.p. push to enforce immigration and other laws, end quote. mr. messer: really? the constitution is clear about how our government is supposed to work. congress makes the law, the president enforces the them. president obama should know that since he used to lecture about

constitutional law. the president isn't the first to stretch the bounds of executive authority. the proper constitutional limits on the president's power are long in this administration's rear-view mirror. he's disregarded laws he disagrees with, even when they are his own. the american people are demanding respect for the rule of law. they want our system of checks and balances restored so that their government reflects the will of all, not just one. that's why we passed the enforce law act, enforce the law act yesterday, and that's why we'll continue to demand the president do his job not ours. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i rise today to highlight an issue impacting constituents in my district and across the nation. recently statistics were published lauding texas following unemployment rate. articles say that texans are finding good jobs, but i want to rise today to speak on behalf of those that have a hard time making it each month. many of these so-called good-paying jobs after working 40 hours a week pay about $15,000 a year. sometimes these hardworking americans have to work two or three jobs just to make it at the end of the month. mr. speaker, the truth is is that texas families are hurting and struggling every day just to put food on the table and put clothes on their kids' backs. i was talking with a lady just the other day that asked me, what are we going to do about the minimum wage? we need to vote on the minimum wage. h.r. 1010 that would raise the minimum wage and bring over five million americans out of poverty.

i have signed discharge petition and urge you to bring this bill up for vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i rise, ask unanimous consent to address the house. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, last weekend 239 passengers on a malaysian airplane were lost. and as of this morning i don't think we yet know their fate. according to the fort worth star tell gram, one of those residents used to call keller, texas, home. i want to share with the body what his family had put out as a public statement. i'm quoting here. phillip wood was a man of god, a man of honor and integrity. his word was gold. incredibly generous, creative, and intelligent, phil cared about people, his family, and above all, christ. so our hearts are hurting, we know so many families around the world are affected just as us by

this terrible tragedy. we ask for your prayers, not only for ourselves, but for all involved during this difficult time. as a family we are sticking together through christ to get through this. thank you for your understanding, close quote. i think words we can all take to heart while we ponder the fate of those individuals lost on that plane. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today with a heavy heart. i ran for congress to help people and it's past time to extend emergency unemployment insurance, and i'm ready to vote to do so today. unfortunately this republican congress is denying more than two million people across the country the opportunity to support their families and get back on their feet. extending emergency unemployment insurance is simply the right thing to do.

have republicans lost their compassion or have they simply lost touch with reality? every week another 72,000 americans run out of unemployment insurance. in georgia, more than 75,000 people have already been cut off. this is supposed to be a lifeline for people who are involuntarily unemployed. no one wants to be unemployed. it is essential that we show the compassion our forefathers displayed when america was rebuilding itself after the great depression. we must help those who are looking for work. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the jerusalem -- the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

a few weeks ago i stood here to advocate for better economic policies for women because what this congress takes up, week after week, doesn't reflect the priorities of the women i talk to at home. when i talk to the women in my district, the common thread is clear. women just want a fair shot. they want to know if they work hard and play by the rules, they will succeed and their families will succeed. unfortunately, there are some hat just don't get it. ms. clark: just last month, we had to fight against an unconscionable bill that would take away a woman's right to choose. the hobby lobby case will determine if a woman's boss can determine what kind of care and access she can access. when it comes to ensuring if women's got a fair shot, we have to protect a woman's right to make her own health care decisions and her ability to plan for her family and her

future. that's why i'm proud to stand with my colleagues from the pro-choice caucus in signing the amy cus brief to ask our -- the amicus brief to ask our supreme court to protect the rights of women. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: just as the storied competition between the new york yankees and boston red sox works to improve both team, does school choice in empowering families to choose the school that best fit theirs kid, improve all our public schools. our work force had a hearing on charter schools which i encourage my colleagues to look at the record of. we heard testimony from across the country about the tremendous role charter schools are playing as part of our public education system, in ensuring that all students have access to a quality education. in addition to charter schools,

making sure that states have policies like colorado does for open enrollment within a district and between districts. parents should be empowered to choose their neighborhood school, a magnet school, a charter school, another public school with an educational model that fits the unique learning needs of their kid. in this way, we can ensure that the next generation of american children are prepared to succeed in the 21st century. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on march 13, 2014, at 9:39 a.m., that the senate passed senate 611.

with best wishes, i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on house administration be discharged from further consideration of senate joint resolution 32 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: senate joint resolution 2, providing for the reappointment of john w. mckarter as citizen regent of the board of regents of the smithsonian institution. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the joint resolution? without objection, the joint resolution is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the -- of the committee on

rules i call up house resolution 515 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 91, house resolution 515, resolved, that at any time after adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 31 9 to prohibit the conditioning of any permit, lease, or other use agreement on the transfer, relinquishment or other impairment of any water right to the united states by the secretaries of the interior and agriculture. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points ofed offer against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on natural resources.

the bill shall be considered for amendment urn the five minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources now printed in the bill. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part a of the committee report on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally quided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waved. at the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage, without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. section two, upon dopping of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the house bill, h.r. 4015, amend title 18 of the social security act to repeal the medicare sustainable growth rate and improve medicare payments for physicians and other professionals and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment printed in the part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted.

the bill as amended shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amened, on any amendment thereto to final passage, without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce and the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. and two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section three. on any lennell slative day during the period from march 17, 2014, through march 21, 2014, a, the journal of the proceed ogs they have previous day shall be considered as approved, and bmbingts, the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article 1 of the constitution to be announced by the chair in

delairing the adjournment. section 4, the speaker may appoint members to perform the duets of the chair for the duration of the period addressed by section three of this resolution as though under clause 8-a of rule 1. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. burgess: during consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for purposes of debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, house resolution 515 provides for consideration of h.r. 3189, a water rights protection act, under a structured amendment process, making in order three amendments and providing extra time for debate for the substitute amendment which will be offered by mr. polis.

the rule also provides for the consideration of h.r. 4015, the s.g.r. repeal and medicare provider payment modernization act of to 14 -- of 2014, with one amendment, offered by chairman camp of the ways and means committee, being self-executed in order to ensure that the legislation has a valid pay-for. this is necessary so that the bill before us does not run afoul of the majority's rule on cut-go, as is customary, the rule allows the minority to offer a motion to recommit on each bill, finally, the rule provides for the customary district work period authority. h.r. 3189, the water right pross text act, addresses the concerns of a number of our western state colleagues who have experienced the federal government threatening to take over the private water rights of businesses and private citizens held on public lands. the bill sponsored by representative scot tipton from colorado is a bipartisan effort

to protect water supplies and property rights designated for recreation, agriculture, local conservation, and municipal use from federal government overreach. the bill protects water users and upholds state water laws by prohibiting federal agencies from extorting water rights through their use of permits, leases and other land management arrangements. if the floor debate on this bill is anything like the debate which members of the rule committees observed last night this discussion will be spirited. as this issue deeply affects western states where so much of their land is criminaled -- controlled by the federal government. the second bill, h.r. 4015, the s.g.r. repeal legislation is an issue that i have worked on my entire congressional career. it reflects years of bipartisan, multicommittee, bicameral discussions and negotiations, bringing together members of all ideological stripes as well as those from the outside to coalesce around

a policy to help patients, to help care providers get out from the constant threat of payment cuts under the current sustainable growth rate structure for medicare payments. everyone agrees, mr. speaker, that medicare's sustainable growth rate has got to go but today we are considering an actual framework to realistically accomplish that goal. this formula, the sustainable growth rate formula, was enacted as part of the balanced budget act of 1997 in an ultimately misguided means by which to restrain federal spending in medicare part b. the formula consists of expenditure targets established by applying a growth rate designed to bring spending in line with the expenditure targets over time. since 2002, formula, has call forward reduction to physician reimbursement rates. however, every congress has consistently passed legislation

to override this formula. this has led this body to find over $150 billion with no solution out of this annual mess. if congress were to let the s.g.r. go into effect, physicians would face a 24% reduction in reimbursement rates in just a few week's time this unrealistic assumption of spending and efficiency have plagued the health care profession an our nation's seniors. the bill before us repeals the s.g.r. let me repeat that, because it's so important. this bill repeals the sustainable growth rate formula, avoiding potentially devastating across the board cuts slated for 2015 and does so a at a cost far lower than what congress has already spent or would likely spend over the next 10 years' time. the formula -- the bill provides for five years of payment transition, essential to allow us to assure continued

beneficiary access, to allow medicine to concentrate on moving to a broad coppings of reporting and to allow congress to move past the distraction of this formula to identify reform this is a can further benefit beneficiaries. it will allow providers the time to develop and test quality measures and clinical practice improvement activity which is will be wrused for performance assessment in other phases of the bill. during the five-year stability period, physicians will receive annual increases of .5%. i hear it already, that's not very much. it's not. but it's more aggregate than has been provided over the last several years and more importantly, it provides that stability so physicians' offices can plan and plan ahead on how to take care of their plashtes. the -- patients. the quality measurements implemented will be evidence based. developed through a transparent possess that will seek input from provider groups oand

patient groups and other stake holders, quality reporting will involve a provider being judged against their practice, rather than a one size fits all generic standard of care that does not take into account the unique practice of various specialty providers. providers will also self-determine their measures, we consolidate three reporting programs into the merit incentive payment system, easing the administrate burden on doctors while retaining the congressionally established goals of quality, resource use and meaningful use. the new reimbursement structures ensures continued access to quality care while providing physicians with certainty and security in their reimbursements. . up like current law all pent penalties assessed from not meeting the benchmarks will go to those who are. this keeps the dollars in the medicare system and that ultimately drives the quality

which benefits medicare patients. standards against which providers will be measured will be developed by professional organizations in conjunction with existing programs, and will incorporate ongoing feedback to doctors, thus further ensuring that optimal care is ultimately provided to the pasheant. real time feedback -- patient. real time feedback will be gained through registries and performance data and doctors are encouraged to participate in the process through data reporting. for eligible professionals who choose to opt out of the fee-for-service programs, alternative payment models will be available. these models may include patient centered medical homes, whether they are primary or specialty models, or bundles or episodes of care. by encouraging alternative payment models, care coordination, disease management our proposed solution will inspire innovation. qualifying practice that is move a significant amount of their patients into one of these alternative payment methods will

see a 5% quality bonus. the bill will also take affirmative steps to improve the accuracy of relative values and missed value services, but even though we are taking these important steps towards ensuring quality care, the bill specifically states that these quality measures are not creating a federal right of action or a legal standard of care or duty of care owed by the health care provider to the patient. mr. speaker, we have had a lot of discussion. i know my friends on the other side of the dais may disagree with having to pay for new spending, but this is an important reform that republicans put in place when they reclaimed the majority after the 2010 elections. if you want to increase mandatory spending, you should reduce mandatory spending elsewhere. this is a simple concept, and i know that my constituents and many americans agree with this. the democrat substitute highlights the difference between the parties on this issue.

democrats have embraced a budget gimmick to offset their bill. a gimmick that even the nonpartisan congressional budget office c.b.o. -- congressional budget office has said is not horrible. there is no way that it will pay for anything because the score is zero. republicans want to reform medicare and the payment system in a responsible way and do so in a way that's paid for. if my colleagues on the other side can find a legitimate offset, i'm happy to review it. in fact, this is exactly what we are asking of the united states senate. you don't like our offset. offer one of your own. and let's work together to pass these much needed reforms. this bill is consistent in its themes throughout. we provide payment stability, reduce and streamline the administrative burden, increase predictability and doctor inaction was center for medicare and medicaid services. build transparency in the system. encourage innovation and delivery of service, and keep providers in the driver's seat.

i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on the underlying bills. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: i thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time he may consume. mr. polis: so we have two bills before us under this rule. which i will briefly discuss. before getting to the more important topic of what bills are not being considered. on the floor of the house this week. notably despite comprehensive immigration reform having passed the senate with more than 2/3 support, despite the fact there is more than 10 million people here in this country illegally. despite the fact that our border is porous and people are sneaking across, as well as illicit goods. despite the fact that we have no meaningful workplace enforcement. despite the fact that farmers

and the faith-based community are crying out for reform, business community, tech community, labor there is no immigration bill on the floor of the house today. instead we are discussing two bills. we are discussing one, srg fix, that sounds obscure to people, s.g.r. fix, what is that? this is the reimwurstment -- reimbursement rate for doctors under medicare. there is a budgetary fiction that long predates me in this place, i assume that at the time republicans and democrats created this elaborate budgetary fiction together, this degree of budgetary fiction requires both parties' most creative thoughts possibly put together, so we pretend every year that there are large -- going to be large cuts to medicare. now, i think republicans and democrats know that that is not likely to happen. those cuts would completely gut medicare. doctors would drop medicare

patients if those cuts were to occur. so each year sometimes shorter than a year, sometimes six months, sometimes three months, sometimes two years democrats and republicans have to come together to figure out how to avoid those automatic cuts that otherwise occur. that discussion is about how to pay for avoiding those cuts. each time. democrats have suggestions to pay for it. let's eliminate oil and gas loopholes. let's use the overseas contingency fund. republicans have ideas about how they want to pay for it. n this case the 5 nd repeal of obamacare. -- 52nd repeal of obamacare. they want to keep the taxes, they just want to get rid of the benefits. so they are going to keep all of the taxes from obamacare. those republicans love those taxes, but they are getting rid of some of the benefits. that's the secret of what they are using to pay for just so you know. the real discussion is how to do

it. but in this case the republicans are presumably so embarrassed about their pay for, the fact they are using the obamacare taxes to pay for medicare, that they are slipping it into the rule and what's called the deem and pass language. what is characterized by some as the demon pass language. this rule says, quote, the amendment printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. that means there is not going to even be a vote on the actual way to pay for avoiding the medicare cuts. it's in the rule itself. this is the most costly rule i have ever seen. of rule costs $138 billion obamacare taxes that the republicans want to use. this is an expensive rule, mr. speaker. if there is a real desire to talk with democrats about ways

to pay for the medicare s.g.r. fix, also called the doc fix, we are happy to do it. we were hoping you would allow a democratic pay-for sponsored by mr. tierney. we'll talk about the previous question. our idea is to use the overseas contingency fund to avoid any cut to medicare beneficiaries. but this rule does not allow us to do that. this rule doesn't even allow the house to vote on using obamacare taxes to pay for s.g.r. t includes the deem and pass language in the rule itself. a rule itself that includes self-executing language that costs $138 billion. that is one expensive rule, mr. speaker. and i certainly hope my colleagues vote no. this bill also -- this rule also

includes h.r. 3189, the water rights protection act. as my colleague said, those of us in the west feel that whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting about. i think the debate on the rules committee last night and the upcoming debate here on the floor will probably reflect that old adage. now, the genesis of this particular bill is something that mr. tipton and i and i think many members of this body agree on. we wanted to address a narrow dispute between the u.s. foreign service and ski permit holders that directly impacts my district and impacts mr. tipton's district. and i support mr. tipton's efforts in that regard, and i was hoping we could have gotten the bill to a point where it would have passed near unanimously or unanimously. instead, this bill has become a job killing republican water

grab that even the counties that it was designed to help oppose. the counties in my district that have ski resorts, eagle, summit county famous resorts like winter park, veil, arap pa hoe basin, brecken ridge among others, these counties now oppose this bill because it will destroy jobs in their counties by destroying recreational opportunities like whitewater rafting, fishing, year-round tourism opportunities that are critical to the economic success of my district. these changes to this job-kig republican -- killing republican water grab vs. caused this bill to snowball to an effort that will hurt our river's health, destroy recreekal -- recreational opportunities, and the underlying bill jeopardizes the agreements that will lead waters into streams and rivers,

that allow our tourism industry to be so vibrant. even some of the counties as we mentioned in rules committee yesterday, certainly not all the counties, some of the counties like the home of aspen in mr. tipton's district, they also oppose this bill. now, again, there was an overreaching decision by the u.s. forest service that required ski area permitees to transfer ownership of water rights to the federal government. in 2012 that was overturned by a u.s. district court judge. it's important to note i believe the purpose of this bill and i hope we can address it through the amendment that i have offered which is allowed for 20 minutes of floor debate under this bill. this bill can still be saved by this body endorsing the amendment that i have offered as part of this bill, which is also supported by ski area representatives from across the

mountain west, along with my colleagues from colorado, ms. degette and mr. perlmutter. unfortunately this job-killing republican water grab bill uses the ski area directive as a pretense for making wholesale job killing changes. ski areas have been a punching bag for the u.s. forest services misguided policies for the last decade. i think we can find common cause around a narrow solution and that time the forest service has changed the ski area water policies four times. it's inconsistently enforced others. it's left ski areas subject to the agencies when they capital intense ski areas. the major economic driver of the mountain areas of my district have been at the whim of sometimes arbitrary federal actions.

ski areas collectively hold water rights worth hundreds of millions of dollars that are critical to their business. now, my colleagues might wonder what kind of improvements a ski area might want to make. in 2011 this body unanimously voted to support the enhance the act to allow ski areas to expand summertime activities. among some of those other summertime activities that ski resorts benefit from are white water rafting, fishing, the very kinds of recreational opportunities that will be impacted by this job-killing republican water grab. i entered several pieces of testimony into the record in the rules committee yesterday. statements from water districts and from counties with regard to how this bill will impact recreational opportunities in colorado. i was proud to offer an amendment along with ms. degette, mr. perlmutter, mr.

custer, mr. cartwright, and mr. huffman that would fix the issues and return the bill to the original purpose. the amendment ensures any u.s. forest service directive will not condition ski area permits on the transfer title of any water right or require any ski area permitee to acquire water right in the name of united states. it ensures the long-term viability of ski areas and makes sure this bill is not the job-killing republican water grab that it has become. it's important to note that the narrow dispute that was the genesis of this bill could have been solved with the suspension measure. we have offered language repeatedly to mr. tipton and his staff, to the committee and its staff, but we were not taken up on that offer, sadly. and instead we have before us a job-killing republican water grab bill that would devastate my district. instead of manager's amendment

was offered as well as additional language in committee. this bill is riddled with problems that are not addressed. the bypass flow issues is not solved in the manager's amendment, which does address the endangered species act component, but does nothing to address the issues around the forest service, b.l.m., interior, and agriculture agencies that also have relevant authority under a number of statutes, including the federal land policy and management act, forest service and park service organic act, and wild and scenic rivers act to impose bypass flows. simply put, the manager's amendment doesn't make the necessary improvements to make this a bipartisan measure. they are simply window dressing for a job-killing republican water grab. let's talk about issues in the underlying legislation. in the west, water rights are state based. any challenge to the right or