two weeks. after spending days on the floor of this house a few months ago saying that the biggest threat to economic growth in the future was our budget deficit. they said that two months ago, and then they waive their own rules to bring up these bills that increase our credit card debt to the tune of $600 billion total from what came out of the ways and means committee in violation of your own budget, that's what i object to. i thank my colleague, mr. levin. mr. reichert: i'd like to reserve. i have another speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. reichert: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to mr. camp, the chairman of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. as the gentleman from maryland said, you know, we're probably going to do this again, and as the majority whip in the senate has said, when we do these policies -- to paraphrase him -- when we do these policies over and over again, we ought to have an honest debate about what should be permanent. and if we do accept the motion to recommit, which i understand is going to be offered, which will extend this one more time, that means we've extended this for a full budget window unpaid for. so i understand why there's some defensiveness about the voting record over there in terms of how many times they voted to extend these policies unpaid for. but if we're going to do that, let's do this in a permanent way so we can bring some certainty to small businesses. we know that's where most of the jobs get created in any recovery. let's give small business in america some certainty so that

the job creation can start and they can understand exactly what their tax obligations are. so this is something that, as i've said, many small business groups are behind and support and i would urge the adoption of this legislation. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: are you ready to close? mr. reichert: i'm ready. i have no other speakers. mr. levin: how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has five minutes remaining. mr. levin: i'm glad the chairman spoke because this back and forth really illustrates what this is all about. the chairman made these three provisions permanent, these .hree and paid for it pay one here doesn't

dime. we have voted to continue these programs on a short-term basis or a variety of reasons. for example, bonus depreciation , the notion to make it ermanent was contrary to its purpose. and the chairman left it out of his reform. and then comes here and votes o make it permanent. so we need an honest debate about tax reform and what provisions should be made permanent. you have prevented any kind of an honest debate. you don't even allow us to bring up something, some way to pay for any of this.

and i pointed out previously the difference. it's so striking. if you extend this, as the senate does, these provisions for two years, the cost is $3.4 billion. his bill is $75 -- these two bills -- billion. this could be no more dramatic example of irresponsibility and of recklessness. and the mystery is, why in the world are you doing this? as you can see, there aren't huge numbers of members here for the debate. you're going through the motions, and you're going through -- these are rifle shots. you're shooting yourselves in the foot.

so don't bring up the number of times that someone has voted to continue these on a temporary basis as you argue to make them permanent. that's dishonesty. so i just urge everybody -- and i want to emphasize the path that's being followed here not only is contrary to the tax reform proposal, contrary to the ryan budget, it's also going to lead to the republicans -- as mr. van hollen said so eloquently -- raising this huge amount of deficit. $614 billion, going towards $1 trillion, and then the republicans are going to come back here and say, wow, look at how much the deficit has increased so you now need to cut these critical programs relating to the lifeline of all

of the people in this country, the middle class and all who need some help. so i strongly urge a no vote on this bill, and we will soon discuss the next bill, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. reichert: mr. speaker, how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 18 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. reichert: thank you, mr. speaker. just to be honest, also might want to mention that mr. levin has voted five times to extend these policies for a total of 12 years. congress and democrats and republicans have repeatedly re-authorized these tax policies without paying for them. democrats have agreed with this policy, of these bills before us today. making them permanent gives businesses certainty that they will always be part of the tax code, and it's a more honest way of budgeting.

increases taxes to pay for these policies makes no sense. we all agree that small businesses impacted by my bill need more access to their capital, which my bill gives them, making the policies in this bill permanent while raising taxes in the area of the economy defeats the purpose of freeing up capital in a way that encourages job creation and moves the economy ahead. again, mr. speaker, in legislation will give businesses what they've been asking for since i came to congress and that's stability, that's certainty in the tax code so the tax code is working for them and they're not working for the tax code so they can plan ahead, so they can grow their business, so they can hire more workers, so that we can get this economy moving again and get people back to work. they need -- in order to do that, mr. speaker, they need the ability to access their

capital so they can invest again in we're businesses, re-energize their business, buy new equipment, sell new equipment, create new jobs and, again, grow the economy. so i urge my colleagues so vote for the bill before us today and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 616, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to make permanent the reduced recognition period for a built-in gains of s corporations. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed to the bill in its current form.

the clerk: mr. neal of massachusetts moves to -- mr. neal: i ask unanimous nsent to dispense with the reading. the clerk: mr. neal of massachusetts moves to recommit the bill h.r. 4453 to the committee on ways and means with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendments -- amend section 2, to read as follows -- section 2, two-year extension of reduced recognition period for built-in gains of s corporations. a, in general, subparagraph c of section 1374-d-7 of the internal revenue code of 1986 is amended by striking 2012 and 2013 -- mr. camp: mr. speaker, i withdraw my objection of dispensing with the read. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection. without objection, so ordered. mr. camp: i reserve a point of

order. the speaker pro tempore: a point of order is reserved. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. neal: mr. speaker, i think what i would like to offer to the chairman at this moment is to pose the following question -- are you going to surrender this morning or are you going to surrender in november? because really those are the two options na are before us today. -- that are before us today. so let me retrace where we've been on tax reform. the chairman gets credit for a valiant effort at tax reform. mr. levin has acknowledged it. mr. van hollen has acknowledged it. three years we studiously and aggressively undertook a genuine effort to do tax reform . now, what's interesting about it is the democratic response to the chairman's draft was fairly tepid. let's continue the conversation. republicans released letters to

the media. the speaker point of order cold water on the initiative -- poured cold water on the initiative and so we're back here this morning. now, let me offer a couple, i think, economic facts that might defy consideration around here because sometimes they don't go with opinion. there has been little wage growth for the average american worker since 2002. downward pressure on wages is what we should be discussing. in addition, a company located not far from where i live submitted a tax form last year of 19,000 pages. they have 11 full-time internal daily. agents on site if this isn't a reason to go back to the table and negotiate tax reform, i don't know what

is. so the chairman kind of cleverly suggested this morning, if we were to accept what is being proposed by the democratic minority, might that be a path forward? it is a path forward. we are offering a two-year extension of these provisions, and i hope mr. reichert returns or mr. camp returns and says indeed mr. neal has voted for these repeatedly. we're counting on you, mr. chairman, to point out how many times i voted for them. and guess what, you're right. and we're going to vote for them again in november. this exercise in futility ill-serves the american people other than to perhaps get to some messaging points. i don't disagree with these. i disagree with the idea of breaking the budget to make them permanent this morning. but i more importantly disagree with the whole notion that we're giving up on tax reform if if we make these permanent.

some of the provisions in the code need to be discarded. mr. chairman, i would remind u when the republican staff, you removed 300 provisions, exclusions, deductions and preferences from the code. so we come back here this morning in this ill-conceived effort to embrace a couple of favorites? the tax code in america has not .een touched since 1986 1986. i would remind you of this this morning, for all of you out there today, that was before the internet was invented. that's the question before us. a tax code for a modern economy or do we go back to, well, mr. neal voted for this eight times? yes, he did. you could probably say mr. neal

has voted for them 11 times because i think many of them work in the absence of fundamental reform. last point. the chairman said he was going to 25%. the democrats said on the corporate side, go to 28%. we could have done all of this had we gone to 28%. but ideology reigns so we go to 25%. even president obama was at 28%. this is not the way this institution is supposed to function, mr. speaker. the ways and means committee is a privileged perspective on complicated issues. you don't do them like this when it comes to items in the code. so accept the notion that everybody dislikes the code. specificity in terms of what we're going to wean out becomes the problem. here's our last position. a two-year extension -- and mr. chairman, i look forward to seeing you after the elections. you and i are going to shake hands, and i'm going to say as

much as we all like to say, i hate to tell you i told you so, and then i am going to say, as much as i hate telling you, i told you so. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will remind members to direct their comments to the chair. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. camp: well thank you, mr. speaker. i withdraw my point of order and seek time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is withdrawn. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. camp: well thank you, mr. speaker. frankly, this motion to recommit is absurd. it's absurd in this economy to threaten small business with higher taxes. . the gentleman referred to favorites, yeah, i do have favorites. those are the small businesses all across america that hire and people go to work every day, the margins are tight. you know the testimony we have had before the ways and means committee. we need growth in this economy. certainty and long-term tax policy.

we are the only nation in the world that allows its tax policy to expire. i stead of threatening small business was higher taxes, we should give confidence to small businesses. confidence to know what the tax policy is. it's been extended so many times it may as well be permanent. this is the point. so that they will grow. they will invest. they will hire workers. people will have higher wages as a result of a stronger growing economy because families and middle class americans have jobs. so reject this threat of higher taxes, particularly on small businesses. reject this motion to recommit. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the noes have it.

the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. neal: i request the yeas and nays please. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to the order of the house of today, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. mr. camp: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 616, i callp bill h.r. 4457, the america's small business tax relief act of 2014, and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 320, h.r. 4457, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitations, nd for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to house resolution 616, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on ways and means printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in house report 113-472, is adopted and the bill as amended is crd. the gentleman from michigan -- is considered as read. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 4457. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: the tax burden small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and their workers face is too high. every dollar washington takes from small businesses is a dollar that they don't have to invest in equipment, start a new production line, hire a new employee, or provide more in wages and benefits.

businesses aren't growing and hardworking americans are seeing stagnant wages and fewer working hours. this is unacceptable. it seems these days that congress can rarely agree on much. so when we can find some common ground to help grow the economy and get businesses to invest in high -- and hire new workers, we should act immediately. the legislation we have before us today, america's small business tax relief act of 2014, would do just that. by providing a permanent extension of section 179 expensing at a level of $500,000. section 179 is a bipartisan provision that's been in place since the 1950's. but businesses, farmers, and ranchers cannot reap the full benefits when they have no idea if this provision is going to be around the next year or what it may look like. this hurts their ability to plan for the future and expand their

businesses. the farm bureau recently stated this practice makes it difficult for farmers and ranchers to plan and adds immense confusion and complexity to the tax code. it's time to make section 179 permanent at an expensing level of $500,000, so american farmers , ranchers, and small businesses can invest in new equipment, grow their businesses, and plan for the future. sure, house democrats, many who have sponsored this legislation before, are now demanding we pay for an extension of these policies. despite voting year after year to extend these job creating policies without being paid for. frankly, the millions of americans searching for jobs or a few extra dollars in their paychecks, know that pro-growth policies like this pay for itself in the form of new investments, new jobs, and higher wages. i think we can all agree this is the right policy. we should set the rhetoric aside

so we can have an america that workers with a strong and vibrant economy. by supporting permanent policies, washington can promote certainty for american businesses and generate additional economic growth. we have become too accustomed to poor jobs reports, anemic growth, and accepting the way things are. small business expensing has been a bipartisan policy for decades and it's time to make it a permanent part of the tax code. washington needs to wake up, start listening to the american people, and act on real policies that strengthen the economy and help hardworking taxpayers, and today's legislation will do just that. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. r. levin: small business can have full confidence that this

provision will be extended. period. indeed, the fact that i have voted for it many times in the past is as pointed out is confidence that it will be continued. the suggestion that we have made to continue it for two years, we are already well into the first year, if we don't act until the end of the year, and we extend it for two years, that would be another one, not even for another full year, but there would be a two-year extension. so small business can be fully confident this will be extended. there is no threat to it. ero threat to its extension. when it was said earlier by the chairman that small business can

have no idea as to whether this will be extended next year, that simply is not correct. the senate has before it a bill to extend it two years. at some point that will pass. and that's the bill that will be taken up in the house. the chairman did extend permanently this provision, not many others, he paid for that. he paid for it. the chairman extoled the fact that he paid for it. and now they have gone in reverse, and now suggest that we roceed unpaid for permanently. the cost of this is far

different than the two-year extension, as i have mentioned. far different. we are talking about over $70 billion compared to a few billion dollars. so let me just say, everybody has to be mystified, why in the world the republicans are doing this when it violates their dget, when it violates the chairman and the republican ways and means tax proposal, and , when if this is done, it is going to be part of a ratcheting up of the deficit of $614 billion. and will have major ramifications for so many programs and essentially what they are doing is on the one hand, increasing this deficit

dramatically through the ceiling, and then they are going to come back on the other hand and say, the deficit went through the ceiling so we need to take away with the other. education programs, health programs, all kinds of programs that are necessary, transportation programs. they are going to say, well, we just don't have the money when essentially the reason is because they have tried to pass a bill that throws money out the window. we are going to extend the small business tax cut. we are going to do that. democrats will stand together to make sure that that happens. but not in a way that's part of a reckless, irresponsible approach.

and that's a major, major reason we simply have to say,, tend it for two years. then let's sit down and talk about what we are going to do with these provisions as part of a tax reform effort that's serious and is bipartisan. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from ohio, mr. tiberi, control the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tiberi: mr. speaker, thank you. mr. chairman, thank you for your leadership and the ways and means committee. it's been an honor and privilege to work with you. you have been a great leader and we look forward to allowing you to lead us the rest of this year on our committee as we continue

the debate on the, tenders and making some permanent. h.r. 4457, will permanently, tend small business expensing for equipment and property outlined in section 179 of the tax code. as many of you know, section 179 first came into existence in 1958. i wasn't yet born. my parents were not yet married. this he got married in 1958, so they don't see the debate here in washington. it may not have been quite like the debate today, though, i would say. because, ladies and gentlemen, members of congress, this is a mystifying debate. this shouldn't be this difficult. no wonder congress has a low approval rating. section 179 of our tax code is very simple. as the chairman said, very bipartisan. offer the years. it allows business owners to immediately deduct costs of investments of property in

computer software, immediately, rather than depreciating such costs over time. in fact, on january 1 what had been an extender that allowed for maximum expensing of $500,000, the deduction phased out of investments exceeding $10 million, went back to what is current law today. that's why this is so important. it's the essence of this debate and the essence of what my bill does. because it went down. t won't down to $25,000, the limit. and up to $200,000 of investments. so if you talk to tom and judy price in my district, who think that what we do here is just crazy and mystifying, because they have to make real decisions in real time with real money,

not make believe, not theory. they have to make decisions that impact real lives and real cost and real jobs. this is a jobs bill. that's what this is about. if you ask tom and judy price, we have had expensing, and we have had higher limits than $25,000. we don't today. we had them before. they weren't paid for. we had them for 10 years, since i have been here, and they haven't been paid for. you know what? here's the reality of life. in delaware county, ohio, today i talked to tom price this morning, mr. speaker. he has a mulching business, he needs to buy a loader. is congress going to provide certainty? two years is fine.

retroactivity is fine. that's the narrative around here, mr. speaker. we have done it before. let's do it again this way. the senate won't accept it. let's surrender our card today. let's surrender my voting card, mr. speaker. it's somewhere here. let me give it to the senate. my daughter going into the sixth grade understands there's two houses. we shouldn't be surrendering this card, mr. speaker, to the senate because, oh, the senate will do it their way. we have always done it that way. ladies and gentlemen, bill becomes a law this way. house passes a bill. that's what we are trying to do today, mr. speaker, add permanency. tom and judy price and their mulching business, they would like certainty to plan, not a rule make it retroactive, we'll go out a year, by the way, mr. price, we'll do it in november. we'll make it retroactive to january. are you kidding me? . are you kidding me? you guys couldn't survive running a business in

washington, d.c. you couldn't survive. that's what this debate's all about. it's about reality. my daughter knows that the senate has the right to do anything they want, but we have our right with our card. guess what, they're suppose -- there's supposed to be a conference committee and real debate and that's what this is supposed to be about. this is what i tell my daughter who's going into sixth grade. let's surrender to the senate. we've surrendered before. oh, my god, these deficits, they raise taxes. you want to raise taxes on them. i was here in 2009, we passed $ 1 trillion stimulus bill. $1 trillion. nobody cared about the deficit then, but mr. price and mrs. price are trying to buy a loader for $200,000. and we are debating over the deficit and temporary tax code and retroactivity and

surrendering to the senate. that's what this debate is about. that's what this has come to and you wonder why, mr. speaker, americans think washington's broken. because we don't understand what real-life americans who are trying to run a business and hire employees and raise their wages, they don't understand why we're having this -- these mystical debates because they're living in the real world, the real world. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 1681, cited as the intelligence authorization act for fiscal year 2014, in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield five minutes to our whip, the very

distinguished gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill, but i am constrained to respond to the remarks, the emotional marks, the perplexed remarks of the gentleman who preceded me. i have a voting card too. and i don't know whether either tom or judy price have been unemployed or whether their brother or sister have run out of unemployment insurance and have been left twisting in the wind, but this voting card could give them extended unemployment insurance. i don't know whether tom and judy price have employees who are making the minimum wage and living in poverty. this card could change that and

up the minimum wage, but it hasn't been brought to the floor. i tell my friend from ohio, this card could fix what everybody agrees is a broken immigration system, but we're not using this card, i tell my friend from ohio, because we are dabbling in the unrealistic . this card, this card could pass export-import. he wants to grow jobs. export-import is absolutely critical and it phases out and you will not bring it to this floor. is card and your card joined together with 216 other cards could pass all of those pieces of legislation. is card could make sure that tom and judy price have an economy that's more resilient, friend card -- our

from ohio is distracted, but i tell my friend from ohio, this card helped passed the recovery and reinvestment act without which tom and judy price may not be in business today. because your tax policies of 2001 and 2003, unpaid for, which were supposed to grow this economy, resulted in the more loss of jobs than any hoover.ince herbert this card ought to be used today for fiscal responsibility. this card ought to be used to say to your chairman that you praised, david camp, yes, we want to do comprehensive tax reform, not just little item by little item by little item, which destroys tax reform, which exacerbates our deficit and will destroy investment in

education, infrastructure and .rowing our economy this card. urge my colleagues to use responsibly this day. all of us here support helping small business expand operations so they can hire more workers. all of us. our tax code ought to encourage small businesses to do so. but the republican majority's approach to tax policy, evidenced by the two bills on the floor today, is simply the wrong path. do not use your card given to you by the american people trusting that you'll do the responsible, common sense thing, don't use this card irresponsibly today. the bills we're considering today are not -- are the latest examples of republican hypocrisy, mr. speaker. hypocrisy on deficits, as their

approach would raise deficits by hundreds of billions of dollars. there is no free lunch. this pretends there's a free lunch. hypocrisy on tax policy is a rejection of the comprehensive approach of tax reform republicans' own ways and means chairman, mr. camp, that the gentleman from ohio just praised, put on the floor -- at least put on the table -- not the floor, and the response of the speaker of this house was blah, ote, blah, blah, blah. what a shame. how unserious. while i have serious concerns about some of the policy changes that chairman camp's proposal contains, it made the difficult choices and it was paid for. it was responsible. republicans and democrats all say we want a comprehensive tax reform.

this undermines tax reform. so if you say you're for comprehensive tax reform, don't do littlityy bitty pieces that are -- little itty bitty pieces that are unpaid for. these bills today -- may i have one additional minute? mr. levin: i yield two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hoyer: these bills reject that approach and instead take the easy way out by irresponsibly adding their cost to the deficit, a deficit that my friends on the other side of the aisle with whom i join lament on a daily basis but somehow disconnect their policies from their lamentations. in doing so these bills will put even more pressure on a discretionary budget facing the return of sequester next year, undermining our ability to invest in critical priorities like veterans' care, highways, education, bills to make sure

we grow our economy and create jobs. democrats are ready to make the hard choices so that we leave america a better country, not a poorer country, not a deeper in debt country, but a better country for our children and our grandchildren rather than waste our time on these individual bills, congress ought to debate and amend comprehensive tax reform, allowing us to face up to our responsibility to make the tough decisions the american people expect from their representatives. now, mr. speaker, i don't live in a perfect congress. none of us do. or in a country that always makes the right decisions. so i'll vote for an m.t.r. which says we're not going to permanently exacerbate our deficit, but we will make sure that business does have the opportunity to have these tax benefits as we have on a bipartisan basis done in the past. so i'll vote for the m.t.r. i'll vote to make sure we extend these for two years, as the senate suggests.

i don't think that's the best policy. it's not the policy i would choose. the policy i would choose is comprehensively giving permanent long-term r&d paid for so we don't exacerbate the deficit but we do give confidence so businesses can grow. so i tell my friend from ohio, we both have a card. the responsible step for us to take is to vote no on temporary and come with fiscally responsible legislation to this floor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoyer: and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from the hoosier state, indiana, a great member of the ways and means committee and a member of the select revenue subcommittee, he's provided great leadership on the subcommittee and i appreciate his work, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 4457, america's small business tax relief act. i want to thank my colleague,

patty bairey, for his hard -- pat tiberi, for his hard work on this. i'd be remiss if i didn't respond to the last week's comments, the distinguished gentleman from maryland, who with a straight face indicated that this card, his card, was a vehicle for fiscal responsibility. when consistently he's confused this card with this card, a credit card. we've continued to rack up debts. mr. young: and we have not engaged in growth-oriented public policy and that's what this bill is intended to do. this bill increases the amount of small business taxpayer may immediately deduct when she buys operating materials for her business. the ability of small businesses to immediately deduct the cost of qualified investment in the year purchased rather than having to recover the cost through depreciation over

several years has been essential to the survival of thousands of firms over the past decade. higher expensing limits will encourage businesses to invest in new computers, tractors and other types of business equipment and grow. such investment will have, of course, important second order effects. economist tell us this as purchases are magnified across the nation. section 179 expired at the end of 2012 and since then back home i heard from a parade of constituents, business owners and workers alike about the need to restore the provision. i've heard from indiana nfib, indiana chamber of commerce, indiana manufacturers association, indiana farm bureau and countless individual businesses and workers and i'm glad we're working in the house, hopefully on a bipartisan basis, to help us unleash the ability of our nation's small businesses to grow. we know our nation's small businesses, mr. speaker -- may

i have an additional 30 seconds? mr. tiberi: the gentleman may have an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. young: these small businesses are the young of job creation. they create roughly three out of five jobs that have been created over recent years. and one critical means of supporting american small businesses and working americans is through business tax incentives like section 179. this is a proven success. it's its proven itself over the last several years and it's evident that these small businesses are one bright spot of job creation, upward mobility during these troubled times. i support this commonsensecal bill that will help small businesses grow and restore a measure of hope to rank and file americans during thighs troubled times. i'd like to -- during these troubled times. i'd like to thank chairman tiberi and i'd ask my colleagues on the other side of

the aisle to reconsider their partisan reservations to supporting this measure and i yield back. mr. hoyer: if the gentleman will yield? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i will yield myself one minute and yield to the whip. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. he raised his credit card. he apparently is going to use his vote to as you would use a credit card to incur an additional $73 billion in unpaid for debt. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. levin: well, i have the balance of my amendment. the whip is so correct. the gentleman from indiana is very confused. he is using his voting card as a credit card. $73 billion on this bill.

this is not a credit card, our voting card, but the republicans are turning this into a credit card with calamitous results. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett, another distinguished member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. doggett: thank you. it is clear that republicans would dig our country into another trillion dollars of debt, borrowing from the chinese, saudis, whoever will lend it to us. they already approved $614 billion in business tax breaks and they told us that more are on the way, more tax privileges, more tax exceptions, more tax advantages. this bill today is just another chapter in their ledger of accounts payable for american taxpayers. such fiscal irresponsibility doesn't represent a plan for

genuine tax relief for small businesses or for anyone else. . i will say i agree with them that small businesses have every reason to complain as to individual taxpayers. because the tax code they have done so much to write is riddled with special treatment for those who pay more to their lobbyists here in washington than they do to the u.s. treasury. it's been a wise investment for them but a pretty sorry outcome for small business and individual taxpayers. we have some multinational companies who have set up hundreds of offshore subsidiaries to shift their profits out of america and into a place where they don't pay a time. i can tell you that the cleaning crew at the headquarters of general electric pays a higher tax rate than general electric does. that's not fair. they pay a higher tax rate than joe's bakery or patty's taco

house down in san antonio. that's not fair. it ought to be corrected. but instead they have added almost another $100 billion that they proposed and have approved in committee to help those folks continue dodging their taxes. and at the same time the proponents of this bill tell us that america simply cannot afford more to educate its children. only just before yesterday the senate refused to address the problem of soaring student debt, now bigger than credit card debt, exceeded only by the giant debt they want to incur for more tax breaks. they tell us they can't afford to do the research that is us in to cure alzheimer's or find new solutions to cancer and aids and other dread diseases. this is not about borrowing to raise small business up. this is just an excuse to reduce the government investment that we need to grow our economy.

apparently to the republicans, deficits only matter when asking seniors and students and others to sacrifice, but not when it comes to adding one tax break after another. how did we get to the situation that we are in today? there's been a convenient amnesia about the history of tax reform in this congress. last january the gentleman from ohio, the speaker, mr. cantor, they came to this floor and they said america, have we got a deal for you. may i have an additional minute? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doggett: this big old fat tax code that's bigger than the bible, many times over, that we helped expand to resolve the needs of our special interest supporters, we are going to put it on a diet. we are going to thin it down. we are going to give you a simple tax code that's easy to comply with, and in addition to that we are going to lower your rate. we are going to do all that and we are not going to add a penny

to the national debt and we'll keep the rates relatively the same for everybody. they reserved h.r. 1, they said it's so important we are going to make it the number one priority here. where are we on that bill? i would ask the gentleman today. i can tell you, it's still reserved for the speaker. they never brought it out and put it on this table. and giving the american people a chance to vote on it. what happened was they went through a long process, they produced their draft bill, and the lobby went wild against it. they could not stand up to the very people that helped them write the complex unfair tax code we have today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an a mundt. mr. doggett: we couldn't stand up to those special interests, so that bill, 18 months later, not the result of anything democrats did, not the result of anything the president did, they couldn't agree among themselves about how to respond to all those special interest

pressures. so they are back today going one rill bit at a time to add a few hundred billion here, a few hundred billion dollars there and not provide the comprehensive tax reform they told us themselves they would be providing. that's why we find ourselves in the predicament we are in today. i agree with the gentleman, the people in ohio and across america, texas, elsewhere, they have reason to question this congress, because of promises just like that. promises to bring reform to work together in a bipartisan fashion, left on the cutting room floor, because special interest, the people that don't pay their fair share of taxes today, they want to keep it that way. they want to continue to disadvantage small business and individual taxpayers. today we need to say no to this measure and no to their other temporary measures and demand real reform. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. tiberi: just for the record, the gentleman from texas has voted for the policy of either increasing or extending section six times onffsets a temporary basis for a total of eight years. and the gentleman from michigan has time for -- to yield to you. the motion to recommit that the minority keeps talking about today will add billions to the deficit as well. as i explained earlier, the problem with the narrative of we have done it this way, we are going to do it again, and the problem with surrender, as was talked about by the gentleman from massachusetts, who i have a great deal of respect for, is the fact that we are missing the point of what's happening in real america. on americans see that we this floor get a stimulus bill

by the other side, in 2009 i was here. jammed down our throats that added a trillion dollars to the deficit. today the minority's concerned about the deficit and i assumed they want those same small business owners who are trying so hard to create jobs with additional regulations, like tom and judy price face, and they want them to pay more taxes. that's the bottom line. but when they have increased the debt before, whether it's for temporary tax policy or additional spending, there was no concern about the deficit and the debt. it's interesting, yesterday secretary lew at a speech in new york said, i will quote, the u.s. could face a permanent down turn and economic growth without increased business investment. how timely, because if you go to my district and talk to tom

price or talk to gary skinner who owns a farm, and i had the privilege of being in his combine. that combine cost $250,000, guess what? it's about this provision today. the reality with our unpermanent extender policy, with respect to investments that mr. lew talked about yesterday is, that real job creators who are trying to grow their businesses, hire more people so people like my dad, when you was in high school, wouldn't have to get unemployment like he did, or my dad who was an immigrant, i understand a little bit about immigration, dehe spite the fact the gentleman from maryland might not think so, and mom, another immigrant, could get jobs. that's what this is all about p. all you have to do is go talk to these job creators who are looking at us with a whole lot of perplexed looks as to why

can't we change the narrative? why can't the house have a position to negotiate with the senate? why does it have to always be, well, this is the way we have done it retroactively for two years. this is the way we'll do it again. that gives no certainty to these job creators, to these farmers. that's what this debate is all about, ladies and gentlemen. mr. speaker, with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: thank you very much. it's now my pleasure to yield three minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. blour. the speaker pro tempore: -- blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. i listened to my friend from ohio talk about concern for small businesses and the economy. i'm reflecting at the thousands of businesses that were representing here on capitol hill this week calling on

congress to get its act together dealing with transportation. we are facing a crisis in transportation in this country. the majority, because they couldn't put together a transportation bill last year, drove the highway trust fund down. they milked every single dime to be able to get a 27-month extension. what's happened? actually what's happened is it's not even going to last until october 1. all across the country states are cutting back on funding contracts now because the department of transportation is ing to run out of money late this summer. these people were rallying on capitol hill. large business, small business, environment, unions from all

across america saying congress, get your act together. and i note with some small amount of irony that my friends on the ways and means committee $600 billion over of tax breaks added to the deficit that would have fully funded not one six-year transportation bill, but two robust transportation bills. did you listen to those small businesses? did you listen to the contractors? did you listen to the equipment rental people? the asphalt, the gravel, the concrete. those people we have turned a deaf ear to. he ways and means committee in 42 months has not had a single hearing on transportation finance. we had one misguided work session that had never had the

benefit of a hearing that collapsed. they passed it, but they couldn't even bring it to the floor. so we got this 27-month extension. we are facing this summer losing 00,000 jobs because congress re-- 700,000 jobs because congress refuses to act. my friends on ways and means won't even have a hearing on it. will approve $600 billion worth of tax cuts, and we are not dealing with a crisis in your state, in my state for red state, blue state, union, nonunion, big business, small business, the u.s. chamber of commerce and the building trades. et's get a grip. if you care about small business, if you care about the health and welfare of your community, if you care about the future of the economy, read the

standard and poor report that pounted out the investments we make will pay for themselves many times over. it's not just saving those 700,000 jobs, it's an opportunity to grow the economy in the future and something that doesn't have to be conservative, liberal, red state, blue state. it's an opportunity to bring america together to he rebuild and renew our economy. that's what we should be focusing on rather than this sideshow today and that is going to make long-term tax reform harder, add to the deficit, and not deal with fundamental problems that our constituents thisasking us to deal with week. there were thousands of them here rallying before the congress. we turned a deaf ear. this is the abouts we could come up with. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. tiberi: mr. speaker, i'd like to submit for the record a letter addressed to me and representative ron kind from wisconsin, dated june 9, from many employers. in fact it represents millions of job creators throughout america. and their support of making permanent this provision of section 179 of our tax code. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. tiberi: i would like to read from the letter i received from the national association of manufacturers a quote, having certainty over the tax treatment of critical investments will make planning for future ininvestigationments significantly -- investments significantly easier. capital investment is key to economic growth. job creation and competitiveness consequently enactment of this policy would amount to a malmingor step towards a tax code that will promote -- major step towards a tax code that will promote investment.

mr. speaker, again, this is all about jobs, whether it's on a family farm, whether it's at a mulch business, whether it's a small manufacturer, this is about increasing jobs, even mr. lew said, we have a significant problem that we are facing about capital investments. this is over the last 50 years a tried and true provision that we know creates jobs. and to provide certainty is so critical if we talk to those job creators. i have talked to them, mr. speaker. this is so important to give them certainty over time, not retroactivity like the narrative we fall into. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is reck noised. mr. he vep: i yield threemens to mr. kind of wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kind: for the record, mr. speaker, i was proud earlier

this year to introduce the american small business relief act with my good friend and colleague from the ways and means committee, mr. tiberi. the provision that's before us. i get the feeling that during today's debate we're talking past each other because i fully support the policy goals behind the small business expensing bill. it is important that we find a way to get this done. it is important that we establish permanency in the tax code. just as i support introducing legislation on the s-corporation with my friend dave reichert on the committee. many of those provisions were addressed earlier today. really the difference in today's debate, the difference in our approach to policy change, come this is this idea -- whether we have the fiscal discipline to pay for these changes in the tax code or whether we continue to rack up the debt and leave a legacy of debt for our children an grandchildren throughout the

country. that's the only difference we have in today's debate. not about the policy behind it and the permanent nature and the importance of small businesses and family farmers but whether we exercise the fiscal discipline to do this the right way rather than continuing to dig this deficit hole deeper and leave this for future generations to contend with. that's why i encourage my colleagues to vote no and continue focusing on comprehensive tax reform. earlier this year, i give the chairman of the committee dave camp, credit for introducing a proposal on comprehensive reform. we have been guided under a simple rule of proposition. if we're going to reduce tax rate, if we're going to broaden the base, if we're going to simplify the code and make it more competitive, we have to find offsets in it so we're not blowing holes in the deficit in the future. chairman camp stayed true to that discipline. what's ironic is now, just a few short weeks after the

introduction of that, we're back into the old bad habits of introducing tax cuts with no pay-fors, no offsets, to increase the debt for future generations. what's especially ironic is this comes just a few short weeks after they passed their own republican budget resolution that specifically stated in it that if we're going to do permanent changes in the tax code they have to be offset, they have to be paid for. so which is it? a few weeks ago when you were singing the praises of fiscal discipline, talking about making the tough choices, or today, a permanent change with no offsets? there is a difference between some of the short-term ex-tenses nonet keep the pressure on permanent changes, versus what's being attempted today. he knows as i do, as everyone else does, that the number of time this is congress has taken a vote for a permanent change in the tax code with no pay-for

and no offset has been zero. it has been zero. i ask for an additional minute? mr. levin: i yield the gentleman two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kind: what does work is pay as you go budgetary rules, which was in place at the 1990's, under the support of president george bush at the time and president clinton. buzz of a strong growing, robust economy that created 24 million jobs along with pay as you go budgeting discipline we ended up if with our -- with four years of surplus. we paid down the national debt. that was replaced by the next administration and the republican congress that sportsed two wars with no pay-fars, supported two large tax cuts with no pay-fors and supported the largest increase n medicare spend, the part d

rule, without a pay-for. so when president obama took office he, enhearted a $1.5 trillion budget deficit. people are wondering how we dig a hole like that, they need only look at bills on the floor today. talking about permanent changes to the tax code with no pay-fors. we can do better. i know it's hard work to do comprehensive tax reform. it means us having to stand up and say no to a lot of powerful special interests in this town but it's exactly what we have to have the courage to do, to do it the right way so we're not leaving this legacy of debt for these children and for future generations to wrestle with. i encourage my colleagues to vote no on this legislation. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. pll tiberi: -- mr. tiberi: i reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: are you prepared to close? mr. tiberi: i have no further speakers and am prepared to close. mr. levin: good, i will. the fact of the matter is, this provision will be extended. you can vote for the motion to recommit, i guess it's against so creed to vote for it you can vote no. but you'll vote later. and it may be a few months from now, it may not be until after the election. i think it would be better to do it now. if not now, in the next month. so don't scare, mr. tiberi, the small business people in your district. tell them what the reality is.

we're going to extend this. but we're not going to make it permanent unpaid for. it hasn't been done before for good reason. including the need to review it now and then and also to take into account the cost. i think what the republicans are doing to kind of use an old slogan, an old way of saying it, you're giving hypocrisy a bad name. this is contrary to your budget that you voted for. it's contrary to the republican ways and means tax provision put together under the leadership of mr. dave camp. and what's going to happen is, we add all this together, you

have an astronomical addition to the debt. you illion, climbing, if follow this path, $1 trillion. so i think there's no choice here. to avoid hypocrisy or if you want to continue the hypocrisy on your side, vote for this. we're not going to do that. this is a bad idea to proceed this way. we support continuation of this bill, of this provision, in a responsible, not an irresponsible way, in a way that isn't reckless. so i strongly urge all the democrats to look at the full picture here, the hypocrisy on

their side and the ramification if we continue on this path for the programs that we believe in , the programs that have helped to make the middle class of america, and the programs that need to be continued and not snuffed out because the republicans on the one hand essentially skyrocketed the debt, and then they come back to us and say, we're sorry, we're so -- we're sorry, we're so in debt we have to keep cutting the programs that middle america counts on for their livelihood, for their jobs, for their education, and their health. so i strongly urge a no vote and i look forward to the motion to recommit. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back -- the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. r. tiberi: my skit -- my constituents don't have to be scared they watch us. i don't have to tell them anything. i'm not going to tell mr. skinner or mr. price, trust us, we will retroactively -- ladies and gentlemen, we will retroactively, because we're going to rainshower send -- surrender today, we're going to retroactively pass a policy in november or december to allow you to expense something that you bought in june. because today, mr. price needs to buy a loader for his mulch business. and he scratches his head. retroactively? retroactively? you guys don't know what operating businesses are all about. if you're talking about retroactively. because that's been the narrative here.

the other narrative is, the senate is not going to do it. with all due respect, after the r&d tax credit debate on this floor, when the same argument was used, senator barbara boxer, not someone i agree with a lot on things, said, you know, maybe we should look at making that permanent. senator dick durbin from illinois a member of the democrat leadership, opened up the possibility of, you know, maybe we should make some of these permanent. tom and judy price would be proud of mr. durbin. i don't know if mr. durbin has run a business or not but mr. price does work his wife. ladies and gentlemen, this should be about commonsense. nobody is pure here. we all added to the deficit. i would argue the deficit was much higher when the other side was in control. those are numbers, less today. less last year. lot more in 2009.

i think we'd all agree. the deficit, the yearly deficit, the debt certainly is higher. -- m.t.r. won't create debt will create debt. my bill will as well. but this is about job creators, allowing them to invest, invest to grow their businesses, to hire more employees. the american dream that my mom and dad came here to believe and live in, ladies and gentlemen. my house that my daughter, daughter in sixth grade, understands that we had a right as the house to pass a bill and have a position that might be different than the senate's. god forgive us for having a different position than the senate. but just because the senate wants to do two years, doesn't mean we have to do two years. i don't understand that narrative. even some of my colleagues say, well, why are we doing this,

because the senate doesn't agree? give me a break, ladies and gentlemen. let's have a conference committee for once. wouldn't that be great? that would be grand. we can fight it out in conference committee, like the founders told us we should. but ladies and gentlemen, with respect to tax policy, there has been no member of the house and the senate and the administration that has provided leadership to get to comprehensive tax reform like david camp. he's been bipartisan, he's been open, he has provided incredible leadership. but as all of us know in looking at history, one house can't provide leadership. you need an executive at the white house who is going to provide leadership and quite frankly we have had none. i credit ron wyden, chairman of the senate, he's got a bill, at least. he's got a draft. i might not agree with his draft but he has a right to have a draft and the senate has a right to have a position and you know what, maybe one day

we'll get there soon, mr. neal. i know you're for that. i'm for that. but we should have a house position. we should not surrender to the senate. but to get comprehensive tax reform done, ladies and gentlemen, we have to have leadership in the white house. we can't do it alone. i thank mr. camp for his service. he has moved the ball on comprehensive tax reform greater than anybody has here sense aye been here. but today is not about comprehensive tax reform, unfortunately. it's about providing certainty to small business owners. our job creators in america. this is what they want. this is what they need. this is what has been proven to be successful. to allow them to expand their businesses. and today if tom price buys a loader for $200,000 he, has to expense it over seven years. his cash flow is killed. i'm not going to go tell him, don't worry, trust me, we'll do it in december.

retroactively. i will not do that. we need to have a position, we need to do it today, we need to do it right. this is about policy, this shouldn't be politics, this should be about the house's position. i urge each and every one of my colleagues to put the politics aside, quite frankly and support this bill, have the house have a position and let's challenge the senate and do it before november. before december. let's do it now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 616, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. popose. the aye -- those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the internal rev mue code of 1986, to permanently extend increased spending limitations and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. neal: i have a motion to recommit at the desk.

the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed? mr. neal: i am opposed in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman call thes. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: the gentleman mr. neal, moves to send the bill back to the committee. mr. neal: move to waive the reading of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to waiving the reading? there is no objection. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves a poud. the house will come to order. mr. neal: mr. speaker, could we have order on the other side, please, so they might hear what i have to say. the speaker pro tempore: the house are come to order. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: could we have order, lease.

this motion to recommit must be pretty powerful with that conflab that had to take place on the other side. now, mr. speaker, my friend, mr. tiberi, he is my friend, i'm going to remind all that mr. camp did a prty good job with the draft he put out. that's not what this is about today. this is about short-circuiting a long tradition in the ways and means committee as to how tax reform ought to be handled. a reminder, again, 1986 was the last time that we spoke of tax reform in an earnest manner. mr. tiberi was very animated. i understand the point he's making. the problem is, if you do a piecemeal approach to tax reform, you will never do fundamental tax reform. it's like the temptation of

repatriation. if you repatriate those dollars, you will never do tax reform. people will just wait for another tax holiday. that's the weakness of the argument that we just heard. a two-year extension makes a good deal of sense. let some of this economic morass clear up. now, mr. tiberi was correct when he quoted jack lew, an old friend. economic growth is very weak. the number of people working is the real issue. 200,000 jobs a month won't do it. so why cannot we find common purpose and expand the runway in trms of economic growth for all members of the american family? are you telling me that this austerity package has worked?

mr. tiberi's comment, when mr. tiberi said the investing class in america and the business class, they are looking for stability, they look at this institution every day and they think they are finding stability? with the arguments that take place here? there are enough men and women in this institution and on the ways and means committee of good are to continue the conversation that mr. camp has begun on tax reform. this is piecemeal. it is an ill-conceived manner and way to do tax reform. again, a reminder the last time we did tax reform the internet had not been invented. that ought to tell us the story. here's what tax reform might look like. acknowledging that fossil fuel is not going away in the near future, we can still build a path to renewables by using the tax code. let's expand the earned income tax credit. let's embrace new markets tax

credits. they have worked at every nook an cranny of this country. let's take a look at embracing build america bonds. in rffrens to mr. tiberi's commentary, let me say this as well. yes, we he need a permanent r&d credit, but let's make it even more robust. we had a presentation yesterday in massachusetts that in cambridge and boston today you have the greatest concentration of r&d in the world. do you think i'm not for a moreau bust research and development credit? again, good minds ought to be able to find this path forward. and i challenge the republicans today. let's get on with renewing the export import bank -- export-import bank, that makes sense as well, you know why? because it's sound economicpolicy. this idea that theology takes over all in tax debate is a mistake. embrace what works, not just the

rigid ideology or intransigence that keeps us from finding a common path. we started out three years ago with mr. camp's work. for three years we sat together, talked, took substantive testimony, listened to what people had to day, come in and defend this deduction, and actually the conversation was very good. i can't understand the logic of that very sound conversation bringing us to this intersection of public debate. are we to throw all of that good will over the side? in this simple moment are we going to cast aside a deliberative process that really was much of the better that i have had a chance to witness in almost 25 years on the ways and means committee? and that's what you're doing today. you adopt these piecemeal approaches through tax reform, you will never get tax reform. think of these numbers.

there is more than $2 trillion sitting off shore in cash and tangible assets. the bottom lines of corporate america are stronger than they have been in years. the last point, downward pressure on wages since 2002 ought to be what motivates us to do tax reform. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. camp: mr. speaker, i withdraw my point of order and seek time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. you know what i hear from the other side? they are happy with the way things are. they are happy with the contracting economy, negative 1% growth in the last quarter. they are happy with fewer people in the work force than the carter years. they are happy with more young

people living at home than ever before. they are happy with declining income for the middle class. because they are saying, just keep doing what we have been doing. in fact, as i think about it, my friend from massachusetts said, let's just wait and let the economic morass clear up. that's a direct quote. let's just wait. no, i will not yield. the gentleman's had his time. i have very limited time here. let me just say, if we just sit and wait, nothing's going to change. this policy has been extended for tsh-has been extended many, many times for more than the budget window, unpaid for, with large bipartisan votes. clearly at the end of the year this policy will be extended unpaid for. so why not do something good for america? why not do something good for those employers and those workers who are looking for an

economy that starts to recover? we are the only nation in the world that has temporary tax policy. we are the only nation in the world that lets significant policies that help people invest and create jobs expire. we let them expire at the end of the year this will have been expired for a year. then we'll retroactively put it in place. what we really need is permanent policy. so let's stop threatening small businesses with higher costs. that absolutely makes no sense. let's get people back to work. let's get people earning higher paychecks. let's do something right for america. vote against this motion to recommit. vote for the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. neal: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the

yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit on h.r. 4457 will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of h.r. 4457, if ordered, the motion to recommit on h.r. 4453, passage of h.r. 4453 if ordered, and adoption of the house resolution 617. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yea are 182. the noes are 232. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. levin: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 272. the nays are 124. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to recommit on h.r. 4453, offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will redesignate the motion. the clerk: motion to recommit h.r. 453, offered by mr. neal

of massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to recommit. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 188, the nays are 229, the motion is not adopt. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan requests the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered.

members will record their votes by electronic device. this is will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

eee

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 263, the nays are 155, the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of house resolution 617, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 617,res. louis -- resolution condemning the abduction of

female students from the terrorist group known as boko haram from the northeastern provinces of the federal republic of nigeria. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 411 and the nays are two. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a unanimous consent, i ask unanimous consent the committee on appropriations having until 5:00 p.m. on friday, june 13, 2014, to file a privileged report on a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. mr. frelinghuysen:: i ask unanimous consent when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow and, two, when the house adjourns on that day to meet tuesday, june 17, 2014, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00

p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute peeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to commend a recent display of distinguished heroism by the brave men of the fire department of new york. mr. grimm: on the morning of june 5, 20 14, a massive fire erupted in staten island. the firefighters were engine 161 and ladder 81 quickly arrived on the scene and set to work battling the blaze. with choking smoke and rising flames, firefighters, ed morey,

billy calderon, and thomas ascended to the second floor bedroom of the rivera family's burning home and carried the couple to safety just in the nick of time. a mere two more gasps of smoke would have proved vital for mrs. rivera who was unconscious when billy calderon saved her life. engine 61's baring rescue is another testament to the enormous dangers displayed by our firefighters and to make sure that the fdny receives the proper resources and training that crucial companies like 161 are spared from the chopping block. i'm proud to recognize and commend engine 161, ladder 81 and all the firefighters that assisted for a job well done. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address

the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, today i rise to introduce the respip rickal to access to tibet act. this bipartisan bill has access to tibetan areas in china. current currently, travel restrictions on tibet are more than any other provential entity of china. these restrictions have negative consequences to both u.s. citizens and tibetans. after the bus crash with americans on board, u.s. consulate officers faced prolonged delays in accessing tibet, hindering their ability to help america in displace. and this leaves tibetans limiting international exchange and assess the human rights situation there. these restrictions are not spip rickal to the access --

respip rickal the access. this bills renders inadmirable chinese officials who design and implement these restrictions. i urge my colleagues to join congressman pitts and me in promoting freer access to tibet. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. shimkus: the military code of conduct says i am an american fighting man and the forces which guard our country and way of life. i am prepared to give my life in their defense. i will not surrender my own free will and surrender my command while they still have the means to assist. if i am captured i will continue to resist by all means possible. i will continue to aid others to escape. i will not receive personal

favors from the enemy. if i become a prisoner of war i will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. i will not fake part of any action which may be harmful in my cam rads. if i am a senior i will take command, if not i will back them up in every way. when questioned, should i become a prisoner of war, i'm required to give my name, rank and service number and date of birth. i will evade answering questions to the utmost of my ability. i will make no oral, written statements disloyal to my country and its allies harmful to its cause. i will never forget i am an american fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. i will trust in my god and in the united states of america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington 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. in washington state, 67 high schools compete in a -- for a sports division. schools, nine teams and one dream. for three spring teams representing the purple and gold, that dream came true. they captured state titles in baseball, fast pitch softball and boy's golf. the vikings' baseball team finished their season undefeated and for the first time in the history of our state, they both won their state championships. boy's golf joined them. three of the top five players were there the high school. when i was in high school, it was a thrill beyond measure just to get to the state playoffs. it is inconceivable to win not one, not two but three state championships. the 10th district is proud of the vikes and we congratulate

all of the student athletes who made these dreams come true. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. jackson lee -- ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i rise to commemorate and honor our fathers, fathers of this ountry who have provided the stable, loving atmosphere for children all over the nation. i thank in particular my late father, the first african-american comic cartoonist, ezra jackson. provided me with such stability and love and inspiration. my father-in-law, a tess yingy airman who -- tuss key

gee airman. and my own husband who integrated the faculty of the university of houston and its administration. but the real tribute to the many fathers across america who've taken children and treated them with love and dignity and given them, even if they did not have, some semblance of comfort, fathers who've adopted, fathers who've foster care, fathers who are incarcerated but try to maintain the love of their children, poor fathers, working fathers, those who've found their way to claim sunday as a day when we say happy father's day. we honor the fathers of america. we thank you for the foundation that you have given to this nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. are there any further requests for one minutes? under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from oregon, mr. brauer, is recognized for 60 -- mr. blumenauer, is recognized

for 60 minutes as designee of the minority leader. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. i wanted to spend a few moments this afternoon reflecting on the recent order that is being promulgated by president obama and e.p.a. dealing with the goals for carbon emission. w, even before the president's announcement of the carbon goals last week, the spin machine was in full battle mode. there was an expression of outrage for the apologists for pollution. those who are profiting from what we're doing now and are investing the least amount of change are making dire predictions that sound eerily familiar. the reason they sound familiar is because we have in fact heard them before. there was similar gloom and

doom that greeted the federal government during the bush -- first bush administration that was, if you'll forgive the phrase, hold onto your hats, a cap and trade program to deal with acid rain. there were claims that it was unworkable, that it would be expensive, that it would create far more problems than it would solve. frarningly, we just couldn't afford -- frankly, we just couldn't afford to move ahead, that we should continue the same approach for years. but the bush administration argued against the naysayers that by setting a framework requiring limits to be met and giving flexibility to the states and utilities on how it would be achieved that we would

make progress for relatively minor costs and it would be worth it. well, almost 25 years later the verdict is in. it's been a remarkable success. the program didn't require massive bureaucracy or huge unmanageable costs. we have in fact dramatically reduced acid rain. we promoted investment in new technology. our lakes and forests are healthier and so are our people. the cleanup was achieved in the regular course of business, changing the incentives and the signals that were sent. this success, with bipartisan support, may be one of the reasons that as we moved into the new century, the 2000's, there was initially broad bipartisan interest in reducing carbon pollution. in fact, the solution we -- the

situation we faced in the united states then was much like the situation i encountered meeting with british members of parliament six years ago on their approach to climate change. now, they acknowledged that there were differences between the three parties in parliament about the details of what they were planning, about the best approach going forward. some favored a more command and control. others were dealing with incentives or taxation or a combination. but they were engaged in a debate about the details of how to achieve the objective of reducing carbon emissions, not the wisdom of doing it, not challenging the climate science. now, maybe this was because great britain is an island nation that couldn't afford to be indifferent to shifting weather patterns, rising sea level, the impacts of storm, disaster and crop patterns.

maybe it was that the british parliamentary system made it harder for the leaders of government and the parties in opposition to insulate themselves from day-to-day debate, debate that's largely unknown here in this chamber on an ongoing basis. maybe it was because the british government itself had been involved in such sweeping research and planning. remember, sir nicholas stern had a report on climate that was widely acknowledged and respected that served as a prod for action. during the 2000 election, president bush, then governor bush, said he would move to limit carbon pollution. during a period shortly thraver, then-governor romney of massachusetts was one of the leaders in the regional greenhouse gas initiative of the northeast states that started the limited cap and

trade program that put a price on carbon and using those moneys to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emotions -- emissions. it's been relatively successful, despite the massive recession, and the tea party heat that caused presidential candidate romney to repudiate what he helped put in place and new jersey governor chris christie pulled back. in 2008 the presidential nominee for the republicans was senator john mccain, who had been involved on a bipartisan basis with legislation to restrict green house gases. and at this point, senator mccain was not a climate denier. he was a believer that our government and our economy were not helpless in the face of threats for human impact on climate change and weather instability. let alone spreading doubt about the scientific consensus. we're coming to the floor this

afternoon, debating, discussing impacts on climate, the need for modest steps proposed by the administration, restating some facts and broadening the conversations. i would like to turn, if i could, my colleague from maryland, congressman sarbanes, add his voice. the congress hahn mazz -- the congressman has been deeply involved with the climate, with energy, playing a key role on the commerce committee. i work him to this conversation. mr. sarbanes: i thank my colleague for pulling us together this afternoon to talk about the important development e.p.a. has taken to address climate change and reduce pollution across the country. i want to start by thanking the e.p.a. a lot of people are piling on right now, critics of this action, saying, this is going to cost jobs, it's too disruptive, and so forth. i have a completely different perspective. i wanted to mention a couple of things along those lines.

first of all, this is an important step to take just from a health perspective. in other words, there's many ways you can come at it,ing look at it in terms of climate change, and i'll speak to that in a minute, which is kind of a slow moving crisis, but it's accelerating. but if you just look at it in terms of protecting the health of the american people, frankly, and beyond, but let's talk about america's interests here. if you cut down on these carbon emissions, particularly from coal plants, you'll be promoting clean air. you'll be promoting clean water. the chesapeake bay, which i hold very dear, representing the third district in maryland and having parts of the third district which touch the bay and many tribute tears and rivers and water -- tributaries and rivers and waterways that lead into the chesapeake bay watershed. the chesapeake bay, the

pollution that comes in is often from air deposits that come into the water buzz of the carbon pollution we have. so whether we talk about breathing clean air, which we all want for ourselves or our chern or grandchildren, or drinking clean water, having clean water and high water quality, this is a very, very important step to take. this notion of now setting a goal to cut by 30% the carbon emissions from power plants across the country. but let's look at it through the lens of climate change which my colleague has already raised. we are seing the effects of climate change, as i mentioned, accelerating every single day. so obviously there is a warming going on of the planet, generally speaking, and the scientific support for that being connected to the

activities of humankind is pretty incontrovertible. we have the opportunity in the energy and commerce committee to get a lot of testimony on that front. we are seeing violent weather events across the country which are having a tremendous impact communities, damaging those communities, harming -- actually producing harm to individuals but also having a terrific impact on economic productivity across the country. so the average american out there, i mean, everyday citizens when they look at this issue, the great majority of them are say, we need to do something about this. we can't just sit on our hands. in fact, there's a recent polling that indicates that 70% of americans favor stronger limits on the amount of carbon that's emitted by power plants.

well, ok. that's exactly what the e.p.a. is doing here, taking tooks reduce the carbon emissions from power plants. the e.p.a. is listening to the american people. the obama administration is listening to what the american people are saying. day in and day out about the action we need to take. unfortunately this congress, the leadership in this house in particular, has not apparently, heard the cry of the american people when it comes to doing something about climate change, and so i congratulate the e.p.a. for taking these measures. because this is what the american people want to see and it's going to have a tremendous positive impact. on climate change per se. 0% of americans think the u.s. should take action to address climate disruption. 80% of americans. so those are like commonsense

people, getting up in the morning, going outside, getting their newspaper, opening the newspaper, and seing that there's been violent storms here, or that there's a drought happening here or that the water supply is in danger there. all connected back to what's happening with the climate. and affecting their communities. so they're saying, ok the commonsense thing for us to do is to take considered and reasonable and rational steps to try to address one clear cause of climate change and pollution and that is the carbon emissions from power plants. so thank you to the e.p.a. for taking this initiative in re-- and responding to what the american people are saying. before i hand it back, i do want to touch, though, on what i think is part of the problem here. why it is that, you know, the e.p.a. is the one that's having to step up here and take the

initiative and why we're not taking more initiative right ere in congress. and i think it's because the machinery here has sort of gotten gummed up by the influence that so many polluters have. there was a report recently issued that indicated -- or estimated, i guess, that the fossil fuel industry is getting a 5,900% return on the investment it's making here in washington through campaign contributions and lob being expenditures. and that estimate comes from looking at some of the taxpayer subsidies that continue to flow to that industry, even though this is an industry that makes, you know, over $100 billion in profits every year. but the enflunes is also found, not just in sort of that

corporate -- the influence is also found, not just in, sort of that corporate welfare, but it's seen in the ways our efforts to try to address climate change, the -- our efforts to address climate change keep getting stopped by certain industries. and so we need to look at reforms on that front. what do we do to lift up the voices of everyday americans in a world where money is speech? how do everyday people, people of modest means have speech in that environment and push back on those influences, so that we can actually process their will here in congress? and then let me just close with this observation, because it goes to the argument that's made that somehow this is going to harm us economically as a country. to put these goals in place and begin to cut these emissions. sky lleague pointed to the

is falling narrative at the time when we were going to do something about acid rain and people said, industries aren't going to be able to handle this. it's going to cause parts of the industry to shut down. americans are going to loser that jobs. what happened? the country, america, stepped up to the challenge. and found its way to new opportunities. d i hear a lot of times from industries who say, putting these measures in place, particularly when maybe peer nations aren't doing as much on that front as they could, it's fwoning to put us at a competitive disadvantage. we need to have a level playing field, and so forth. i get that. but sometimes it makes sense to push us to go find a new playing field. and i think that's what the e.p.a. is helping us do. and it's expressing what the

american people want to see, go innovate, go figure out a way to do these things differently. find -- create a new energy portfolio that makes sense from a health and safety standpoint, makes sense in terms of combating climate change, but also will create tremendous new economic opportunities and generate millions of new jobs across the country. these things are not mutually exclusive. economic productivity and innovation is not mutually exclusive. in fact if you look back with a clear eye, historically you will see that when we push ourselves to do the right thing for the environmental reasons, for the health and safety reasons, we often get ourselves to a place of increased economic productivity and innovation. so in closing, i thank my colleague for giving me a few minutes here today to talk on this topic, i want to thank the e.p.a. for carrying out,

listening to what the american people are saying about the steps we need to take to address climate change, to atrezz our health and the veerment out there and taking this very, very important step that i think is going to be productive and positive for the american people. thank you. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman joining us and thank him for his observations, in particular the thought that the sky is falling rhetoric is not necessarily borne out. i'm reminded that three years ago, the operators of perhaps one of the dirtiest coal power planted in the country, homer city, pennsylvania, warned that there would be immediate and devastating consequences from the obama administration's push to clean up pollution from coal. it was facing the requirement to cut sulfur dioxide pollution by 80% in less than a year.

and it sought to block the rule. and they were unsuccessful. n fact, it was -- the recent regulation, the e.p.a.'s, excuse me, the supreme court upholding the e.p.a.'s rule in this case was initiated by the homer city generating station that precipitated all this. but today, the homer city power plant is now a model. it hasn't been shut down, it hasn't been deaf -- there hasn't been devastating consequences for that community. it has been able to adopt new regulations set in place. it has dramatically reduced its emissions. and it's operating successfully. the e.p.a. estimates that about 30% of the coal powered units in the united states are operating without scrubbers. remember, our friend from

maryland talked about the immediate health benefits, not just environmental. the pollution control equipment is not only for sulfur dioxide but mercury. it's inexcusable that there are plants still operating without these minimal protections. mr. speaker, we're joined by one of my colleagues, also from maryland, congressman john delaney. one of the things i appreciate about the perfect they've john brings to congress, being a relatively new member but having pursued a successful business career, he's often taking an approach from an economic perspective that deals with some of these elements. one of the reasons i am pleased that the e.p.a. is moving forward is that this is an economic solution that can have a huge difference, not just in improving the environment but new technologies and doing so in a cost effective way. so we're pleased to have mr.

delaney here and i would yield to him for comment he is may have about this situation. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague for his leadership on this issue, for organizing our discussion here today and for his leadership on so many other important issues here in the congress. i like the way he introduced this next segment of our discussion around economic policy because i will spend a little time on that. i'd like to -- i'm going to start by talking i am going to talk about probabilities and severities. and then move into some market-based solutions that i think work very well with some of the e.p.a.'s guidances which i am supportive of. so let's talk about what experts think of this issue. 97% of the serious climate scientists in the world believe that climate change is occurring and that human behavior is contributing to this. and a friend of mine had a very

good analogy for this. if you took your child to 100 physicians and 97 of those physicians said your child had a condition that needed to be treated, would you wait to get the last three or would act on the advice of 97% of the physicians? that's what we have with respect what climate scientists have as to whether climate change happening and is human behavior contributing to it? second, there is a body of work around this issue and it is similarly overwhelming in terms of the view if it were to occur, the costs, both moral -- right -- in terms of stewardship of the climate and 'll get to that in a second, if you look at extreme weather along the coasts, extreme weathers in the midwest, droughts in the west, fires that are being caused from

that, disruption in people's lives, cost to the federal government, these are very significant costs. not even counting the geopolitical costs associated with continued climate change. a very large percentage of the poor people in the world live at or below sea level. the effect that rising tides will have in the disruption of their lives we know will have a serious geopolitical implications. let's look at the probabilities and severities. there is some chance that 99% of climate scientists are wrong, that in fact nothing happened, i view that as a 10% probability. i say whatever we do, whatever changes we have in our behavior has to be viewed with a 10% probability. there is an overwhelming likelihood that the scientists are right. that's why 97% of them agree. the fact that they're in accord with this issue would make me think from a probability weighted basis there is an 80% probability that they're right.

then there's probably a 10% probability that they're wrong the other way. that they're seriously underestimating the effects of climate and could accelerate and our ability to predict the consequences are greater than we believe. if you add them up and multiply them by the severities this could be one of the central generational challenges of this era in terms of addressing this issue from both a moral and economic perspective. and i think my colleague from maryland framed it well when he talked about the economic opportunities, because i think we've been presented with a false hood. the choice has been, act on this issue, right, act against the advice of 97% of the climate scientists or, you know, ruin our economy if we do that. that's the choice we've been presented with. and that's fundamentally not the right choice.

because if you have a view that this -- the evidence will continue to mound, you have to assume that ultimately humans, both in the united states and around the world will react to that issue. that's a logical assumption. if that logical assumption turns out to be true, then we should assume that 25 years from now, the way this world, particularly this country, the way this world produces energy, dwribts energy, utilizes energy and conserves energy will be very, very different than it is today. and as a business person, i look at that and i say, big, big opportunity. big opportunity to be the leader in energy production, energy distribution, energy conservation, energy utilization. so there is a concept in business known as the first mover advantage, the person who reacts first gets the best technology, gets the best experts, gets the best

insights. and that's what i believe, as a matter of economics, this nation should be doing. as someone who believes the power of markets is very significant to changing behavior, in fact, i believe there are two things that change human behavior. one is their faith and the other is financial incentives. and we have an opportunity, i believe, as it relates to climate change to not only get the faith community behind this issue, which i believe they will. the faith community cares deeply with the stewardship of this country, and it's already there to a very significant extent. getting behind this more. but i also think there's things we can do in terms of creating the right financial incentives to change the behavior. i believe things like a carbon tax, where you create a market-based solution and you tax something that we fundamentally shouldn't like, carbon, in exchange for taxing things we should like like human beings and profits is a better scenario for our country

going forward. which is why in combination with the new e.p.a. regulations we're introducing something called the states' choice act. and what the states' choice act does is require the federal government to give every state in this country another option. it's not a requirement. it's an option and if the states decides to put in place a carbon tax where they tax something we shouldn't like today -- and i'm sure we'll definitely not like in the future which is carbon emissions -- and they can take the revenues from that carbon tax and deploy them against any priority they have, including wer other taxes in their state. they're deemed in compliant with the e.p.a. regulations. so it's giving states or providing states with an option, not a requirement, an

option to put in place a mechanism, a market-based mechanism in lieu of a regulatory framework. environmentalists believe a carbon tax is the best solution cause they understand that financial incentives changes behavior significantly. business broadly believes this is the right solution because it's a market-based approach. in fact, the largest energy company in the world, exxonmobil corporation, disclosed something last year that i viewed as very consequential. that they will begin to -- in their financial assumptions -- so in other words when exxonmobil projects the future and their business against those projections they are assuming that at some point there will be a social cost of carbon imposed through some form of taxing system. what that means, mr. speaker, is that exxonmobil is today making business decisions based on the fact that that will happen. most major corporations, most

of the fortune 500 is doing the same thing. they see where this is going. so i believe when government and the private sector work well together we get the best outcomes. so when you see policymakers and people who care about climate change saying that a carbon tax approach is the right answer, and when you see the overwhelming majority of the fortune 500 believing that a carbon tax is the right answer, i think we should be embracing market-based solutions which is what we're trying to do with the states' choice act. we applaud the actions of the e.p.a. this is a serious problem for the reasons i discussed earlier, and i think actions, particularly in the absence of other actions coming out of congress are the right answer. but we believe this is a great opportunity to also start the conversation around market-based solutions which is why we would like to give every state in this country the option to pursue a market-based solution in terms of -- in exchange for a regulatory solution.

but this is an incredibly important topic and, again, i want to thank my colleague from oregon for organizing us today and giving me an opportunity to comment on my views on this. thank you. mr. blumenauer: thank you, congressman. and i must say i appreciated your observations. i personally am intrigued with your states' choice act. i look forward to exploring that further with you. i'm absolutely convinced in the course of the next decade this country will be moving to a broader carbon tax. it's key to ultimately controlling emissions. it's a way to reform our tax system. it's a way to simplify the equation, and what you proposed i think is a intriguing way to accelerate that conversation and i look forward to continuing it with you. mr. delaney: thank you, sir. mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, there have been certain concerns that have been raised. i mentioned, again, in terms of

the horror stories, people feel it's just too much hard work, too much risk to be able to move forward with reducing carbon emissions. and i must reflect on my own personal experience on this for about two minutes and then i want to turn to my colleague from virginia, congressman moran, from his perspective. he has a great deal to offer to this, and i appreciate his environmental leadership. 20 -- over 20 years ago i was a member of the portland city council, and we were involved then with work to deal with carbon pollution. in fact, portland became the first city in the united states to make a commitment to reduce its carbon emissions. our plan was to reduce these emissions. we had committed to making a reduction of 40% by 2030. 2050. 80% by

it was fascinating to watch as we moved forward with aggressive work with energy efficiency, with transportation, bicycles, light rail, streetcar, building design and planning having a comprehensive effort to tie these pieces together to change how we did business to meet the carbon objective. mr. speaker, i'm happy to report that it's working. as of 2012, our green house gas emissions -- greenhouse gas emissions are 11% below the 1990 levels. that's -- even though our population has grown 30% over that time, it means on a per person basis it's been reduced by a third. emissions from homes are down commercial, 16% in

industrial and multifamily sectors. now, portland -- anybody who's visited in the last 20 years -- is not imporvished. it's not people are fleeing. we see a cohort of young educated professionals, the 20, 30, 40-year-olds are increasing in the city of portland while the quality of life has been maintained and during that same period of time jobs are up 18%. some of the best paying are in those areas that deal with innovation, with energy fficiency, with design, with transportation. so this from my experience, in my hometown for having involved with it for a quarter century, it is not only within our capacity. doing it can actually improve the economy and the quality of

life. but there's another critical area that we need to address and that is why i'm so pleased that congressman moran is here, a senior member. i think the dean of the virginia delegation, sadly has decided he may move on and retire after this congress after a long and distinguished career. but one of the areas that congressman moran is a powerful , respected voice deals in the area of national security, and i'm pleased that he's with us here this afternoon and perhaps can have some observations about what this means to the future security of our country, not just in terms of the environment. congressman moran. mr. moran: thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to join my distinguished colleagues but particularly you, my very good friend, mr. blumenauer, i just cannot thank you enough on behalf of the --

of this country for your leadership on this issue. this is an important opportunity to discuss the president's proposed standard to limit carbon pollution, because just last week our environmental protection agency, gina mccarthy, announced regulationes that would reduce carbon emission 25% below 2005 levels. basically below what they were a decade ago. so that will make many states who've already made substantial progress, such as oregon, toward that objective. it's a baseline that most scientists believe is absolutely necessary to prevent irreversible climate change. the new standard relies heavily on the existing state and federal clean air act which enables states to have their own paths to reduce carbon emissions. states will be able to reduce

for what makes sense for their unique situations, including reducing demand to encourage clean resources of energy, cap and trade programs and a menu of energy efficiency ideas. states can work collectively with other states to develop multistate carbon reduction plans. but without this major course correction, our present trajectory on climate change threatens the future of this planet, and as each day passes without action, the more we are destined to harm our environment, our country and our loved ones. so while this planet -- plan may not be perfect, the current public comment period does provide an opportunity to improve on it, and given the inability of congress to enact meaningful legislation on this or almost any of the other pressing issues or country confronts, i fully support the president's decision directing the environmental protection agency to issue a standard for carbon emissions because it has

become clear that this congress will not do so. . just two weeks ago the house passed an amendment offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia to the national defense authorization bill that prevents the pentagon from using funds to implement climate change assessments. this is a head in the sand amendment. esentencely a way to ensure that the realities of climate change are ignored by our national security policymakers. it's an absurd notion that our military leaders should not react to the unequivocal fact that the plan the is warming and that human activities are responsible. the mckinley amendment, an those who voted for it, remind me of the 16th century catholic church, mr. blumenauer, that condemned the work of a scientist by the name of galileo who dared to claim that the earth was not the center of the universe but that it, along with

the planets, revolved around the sun. those who voted for the amendment, and i hate to say the number, it was embarrassingly large, but those who voted for the amendment were tling our military to irresponsibly disregard the findings of the scientific community that our planet is warming. our military leaders fortunately do get it. they do understand that the climate is changing, and there are doing their best with limited resources to be prepared to respond to that changing environment. climate change is a national security concern for a number of reasons. first and foremost, it is a catalyst for instability and conflict around the world. the u.s. department of defense's own quadrennial defense review, this is the document that defines the department's strategic objectives and potential military threats, declared the threat of climate change is a serious national

security vulnerability that could enable terrorist activity. the quadrennial definance review specifically states, and i quote, the pressures cause by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and government institutions around the worrell. the results will be a higher demand for american troops abroad, even as we struggle to deal with the devastating impacts caused by flooding and, treatment weather events here at whom. climate change is also a new form of stress on our military readiness. the navy, for example, estimates of its 6 its -- 128 installations just at the norfolk naval yard alone will be affected by the one meter rise in sea level which we have to anticipated. we recently had to spnd $240 million to double deck four of its peers -- pierce down at the norfolk naval base so they could

make the structures more resilient to sea level rise and more extreme and more frequent weather events. as an appropriator, i and my colleagues on the committee are dealing with the reality of climate change in federal agency budgets. the effects of climate change are ratcheting up federal expenditures. the 10-year average for wild land fire cost, the basis which we at-to budget for fighting wild land fires is going up every year. we spnt more than $800 million just fighting wildfires last year. so our military gets it. the vast majority of the american public gets it. the executive branch gets it. seems almost everyone, almost everyone gets the fact that climate change is happening. that is everyone but a majority here in the house and a filibuster sufficient minority in the senate. perhaps they are in denial because their political base either chooses to be ignorant or profiting from inaction. perhaps it's a generational issue. i have seen a poll that shows

that a majority of all self-defined republicans under the age of 34 think politicians who deny that climate change -- deny climate changes are either, i'm quoting of course, these are not my words, these are the words of the majority of republicans under the age of 34, that they are either ignorant, out of touch, or crazy. ignorant, out of touch, or crazy. we wouldn't use those words, but the majority of republicans under the age of 34 do it, do use those words towards those who deny that we should do something about climate change. we along with the rest of the world have a duty to protect our children and future generation from the effects of climate change. i stand here with my colleagues to ensure that the obama administration's effort to limit carbon pollution is not diminished or blocked by the congress. for the sake of our national security, the sake of a better future, the obama administration's proposal to limit carbon emissions must be allowed to go forward.

i thank you very much, my friend. i thank you for your leadership. let's hope things get better. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate your very much being here, congressman moran. your voice makes me think maybe you have been giving lessons to jenna mccarthy. mr. moron: you're making fun of our new england accept. mr. blumenauer: the distippingtive way you commune -- distinctive way you communicate and the power of words. i appreciate you putting numbers around some of these threats. the notion that we have the largest naval base in the world, and you're saying we had to invest almost a quarter of a billion dollars because it's had the greatest increase in sea level on the n tire eastern seaboard. mr. moran: absolutely.

we just were shown a map by a naval executive that i he hesitate to say that because it's so scary, but the reality is that the n tire naval shipyard -- entire naval shipyard and norfolk shipbuilding base, which builds our nuclear carriers, within a relatively short period of time, a few decades, is libal to be under watter. we can't afford to continue to deny climate change. literally. so i appreciate your leadership again on this, mr. blumenauer. with -- we have to tun the fight. thank you. mr. blumenauer: there was a recent article in "the washington post" about a church on the waterfront in norfolk. they are having to vacate because this rising sea level is

making -- the pastor of the church was quoted as saying people shouldn't have to consult a tide table to figure out whether or not they can go to service. i deeply appreciate your focusing on this. the reference you make to the defense department needing to have the best information possible, and the outrage that an amendment was approved to the defense authorization that would have, in effect, locked climate enial in that authorization. mr. moran: absolutely. the executives, the folks who have been involved with the navy who showed me this map of our naval shipyards within my son's lifetime are going to be under water. they did say, if it's any consolation, florida's in worse shape. of course it's no consolation

that florida is in worse shape than virginia, but the reality is it's obviously not confined to virginia. it's all along the low-lying coast. unfortunately by the time that some people wake up and accept it, it may very well be too late. mr. blumenauer: i had my first two grandchildren. i would like someday these little boys to be able to see miami and not have to be snorkeling. your reference to what the defense amendment that was passed makes me think of what happened in north carolina where the legislature tried to mandate that the state agencies could not use the best science to make choices. the best information to protect the coastline. i deeply appreciate your joining us this afternoon. i appreciate your leadership and look forward to continuing with you this conversation. mr. moran: thank you, mr. blumenauer. mr. blumenauer: thank you.

there are some who claim we really don't need to move forward with this. because maybe or maybe not the administration's plan will work as they say. maybe it is affordable. maybe it will create those jobs that will improve air quality, reduce carbon emissions. but they say it really doesn't matter what the united states does. it's ironic because some of the same people who are denying climate science are then turning around and saying, but it won't matter what we do because the indians and the chinese are building a coal emissions plant every week or two. so anything that the united states does will really be drowned out. will lose its effect because of other events. this argument is wrong on all counts. it's not as much as we need to do. i'm absolutely convinced, i stand here on the floor of the house today absolutely convinced

over the course of the next 20 years we will not only implement the requirements of this carbon emission rule, but we will go beyond it. we will go beyond it. we'll find its not only manageable but it is the right thing to do. even though this modest step will have some short-term pain and some difficulty in changing current patterns of business and politics, it's something we can and should do. and being able to make this pivot to start changing how we do business is in and of itself significant, because it's these first steps that are going to make it possible for us to take other more important, longer trm steps that will be even more significant. but it's also critical to demonstrate american leadership. our failure to lead on reducing carbon emissions will encourage

other countries that are poorer and are heavier carbon emitters on a per capita basis to just sit back and wait. ome of them will say, hey, you in the united states are the people who have contracted most of this problem. the united states has now been passed by china in terms of annual current carbon emissions, but in terms of total carbon in the atmosphere, the united states is the all-time leader and will be for some time. on a per capita basis, we are still far and away number one. americans can emit three times as much carbon per person as chinese, and six times more carbon per person than the indians. so the united states is the greatest historic carbon emitter, and we are still emitting far more carbon per person.

if we don't step up being rich, powerful, more technologically advanced, how is it that we are going to expect poor countries where people are struggling with exy tension challenges for food sten exy tension exy shall challenges if we are afraid to lead? i think this rule that is being promulgated is an, pregs we are not afraid to leave. it's an important interim step. it sends an important signal. it starts a broader conversation internationally. i was in copenhagen four years ago, watched as the united states shuttled back and forth. the president trying to get people aligned dealing with the european union. frankly we are never going to be able to have one large multinational organization that's going to put all these

pieces together. it's going to require leadership. it's going to require leadership from the united states. showing the way that we are willing to do this, and then working with not just the chinese and the indians, but the brazilians, indonesians. in this political and economic climate, it's wildly unrealistic to expect that the united states is going to assume the entire burden itself, but it's important for us to send a signal that we are moving in the right direction. the united states over the course of the next 50 years is going to be challenged to deal with all that we need to do plus, as my friend from virginia mentioned, we are facing serious problems in terms of climate change that's already under way. if we were some way be able to drop global carbon emissions

below the 00 parts per million we are at now back to 350 parts per million, we are still going to watch the climate effects unfold. we are still going to watch florida sink with oceans rising, problems for its water supply. we are going to watch large chunks of the arctic ice sheet collapse. we are going to watch parts of greenland disappear. . ocean levels will continue to rise. this means the united states will be in a race to deal with things to help people adapt with climate change and for heaven's sakes not to give up because it's going to be a problem. we don't want it to accelerate. we don't want to make it worse. and it's -- if we're going to be able to deal with the challenges 50 years from now, it's what we do in the next five years in communities all

across america that's going to make a difference. acting with cleaner technology, cleaner energy, greater efficiency will save american families money over the next 20 years compared to the current wasteful patterns. it's an opportunity for us to realign our economy for the economy of the future. it's an opportunity for us to be able to minimize the consequences of climate change and frankly every single use of energy has some negative consequences. everyone. but being able to use that energy more efficiently, more effectively and do it sooner minimizes those negative consequences while we harness the economic power to change the economy. i want to conclude with just one observation about the way that the administration has

proceeded. they have signaled the approach that they're taking going forward. they have taken goals and adjusted those carbon goals based on where states are now, what their energy mix is, what they can do in a reasonable way in the years ahead. and they've taken those goals and given great flexibility to the individual states. this is not a one-size-fits-all solution. to the contrary, giving them realistic goals and giving them flexibility on how they're going to achieve it is a terrific way to harness market-based solutions and the ingenuity of the individual states. the administration -- i've heard from a number of people in the industry -- has reached out talking to people with

electric utilities, gas, working in terms of large industrial users and having those conversations with states, red state and blue, regardless of their energy mix. they made it clear that they are encouraging people to take advantage of the flexibility that's been given to them. i think this is an ideal model for going forward, not denying the problem, not trying to solve it all overnight, not trying to have one size fits all but to deal with a minimal standard going forward that sets the base, giving people a range of options to meet it and inviting their ingenuity and their activity. mr. speaker, there is no issue that is more important that this congress should be addressing. sadly, you know that we've not

done much to deal with it on the floor of the house, but the administration's at least stepping forward not denying climate but to be able to give people choices to meet our objectives. i commend the administration for the steps they've taken, and i hope that all members will take the time to familiarize themselves with it and what their states can and should do to be able to meet that objective for america to exercise leadership at home and abroad, meet these minimal objectives and to exceed them in the years ahead. as we did with acid rain we can do with carbon emission. i urge my colleagues to focus on how we can do this to make it a great success story to preserve the future of our children and grandchildren. i appreciate the opportunity to share this discussion and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon has yielded his time. the chair announces the

speaker's appointment pursuant to section 201-b of the international religious freedom 6431 and 8, 22 u.s.c. the order of the house of january 3, 2013 of the following individual on the part of the house to the commission on international religious freedom for a term ending may 14, 2016. the clerk: ms. hannah rosenthal of milwaukee, wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, is recognized for 60 minutes as designee of the majority leader. mr. smith: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, last week i spent four days in nigeria, and i met with one of the girls who

escaped after the infamous mid april school abduction. this brave young woman has suffered much, was clearly traumatized and in deep emotional pain. you could hear it in your voice, you could see it in your eyes as she sat motionless recounting her tragic story. yet, she spoke of concern not for herself but for her friends and classmates who remain in captivity. she pleaded for their rescue nd for their protection. in nigeria i met with a muslim father with two girls who was abducted from the school. he said the agony was unbearable. had underscores that boko haram brutalizes muslims as well. last week i met with other boko haram victims, including a christian mother whose two

daughters were abducted in february of 2012. for the past two years, this mom has had no idea where her two girls are or whether or not those two daughters are dead or alive. she told me her husband was shot on the spot when they raided her home simply for being a christian. three months later boko haram returned and asked if her son had converted to islam. when she said no, he was shot and killed. mr. speaker, on another trip to nigeria last september, i traveled to the city of jose and visited churches that were firebombed by boko haram and met with survivors, those who lost loved ones and those who had been wounded in those attacks. n a camp, i met with a man named abilia.

he lived in the north, had fled to jose. but here was a situation where boko haram broke into his home, put an ak-47 to his face and said if you convert to islam i will spare your life. if you don't i will shoot you. he told the terrorists, i am ready to meet my lord, and he was shot immediately with his wife pleading with the terrorists not to do so. it blew away much of his face. when i met with him i was so moved by his story i invited him to a hearing and he testified and when he told that story to members of the subcommittee on africa global health and human rights you could have heard a pen drop. what courage, what tenacity, what love. i was struck by the fact that he had absolutely no malice to the man that pulled the trigger, who had almost turned him into a martyr. i also met with an archbishop

and muslim leaders in that city who told me how christians and muslims were working together to assist the victims and to try to mitigate the threat. but that threat, mr. speaker, the violence has gotten demonstrably worse and shows absolutely no signs of abating. after the may 20 boko haram bombings in jose that killed 118 innocent people -- that's less than a month ago -- and wounded at least 56, the catholic archbishop, a compassionate religious leader, reminded the world that boko haram is, quote, faithful to its target of eliminating and destroying christianity from parts of the country. the only difference is we're not seeing christians dying and being abducted, we are seeing attacks on muslims as well who boko haram considers not muslim enough. the archbishop said the international community can

help in a number of important ways. the sale of arms is of grave concerned, he said. in short, the government needs help in cutting the supply lines of boko haram. r. speaker, emanuel, special council for the jose project, testified yesterday that, quote, boko haram continues to ravage northern nigeria, killing over 1,000 people in eight weeks. the terrorists are bolder and more die bollical -- diabolical than ever, he said. prior to the school girl abductions, much of the international response was in attention and in action. now its attention, he went on, but inadequate action. another also testified that it took the united states 25 months after the first two americans were attacked and one

year after the third and fourth americans were targeted before boko haram was designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the obama administration. i would note for the record that for the last two years i have pushed hard -- i'm not the only one in this congress that has done so -- to designate boko haram a foreign terrorist organization, or f.t.o., and i introduced legislation, h.r. 3209, the boko haram terrorist designation act of 2013, in an attempt to make it so. on december 13, last year, i chaired yet another congressional hearing on boko haram and was prepared to advance the legislation. however, on the day before the hearing, the obama administration finally announced f.t.o. designation late but welcomed, which is designed in part to slow or help interdict the flow of arms and terror financing. mr. speaker, at yesterday's hearing we also heard from the

former american ambassador to nigeria, robin renee sanders, an experienced and very distinguished diplomat, who told my committee, and i quote her here, nigeria is at the beginning of a long war and they have to realize this. this is no longer a localized conflict or insurgency. there is no easy fix and every attack or response to boko haram cannot be viewed as a blow to it. a long range security framework to the terrorist threat is what is needed. ambassador sand remembers said, the security services need to regroup, reapproach and readdress it as such in order to beginning to get off their heels on the defensive and get on an aggressive offense. this has not happened yet, she said, and boko haram has not only succeeded in terrorizing 60,000 square miles of

territory but also with the late april, 2014 attacks that they have the ability to reach locations just 15 kilometers outside of one city, either with sleeper cells or with bombs getting past checkpoints. current nigerian security services have never experienced anything like this like what it is facing, she went on to say, with boko haram. boko haram is executing asmetical warfare, and for the most part this is outside of the framework of the security forces and their capability to effectively respond. among ambassador sanders' recommendations, additional materiel, especially mobile communications equipment, vehicles, bomb detection equipment over their very porous borders, improve military planning, logistics, equipment and supplies, including sufficient spare

parts and fuel. expanded small special forces unit and 24/7 counterterrorism center. salvaging arsplite center closer to the northeast region so information doesn't take too long to react to or to analyze. and more rapid response forces, or what we call mobile units, and probably more outposts. another expert, mr. speaker, at sterday's hearing, dr. peter pham, testified na a comprehensive strategy is required to respond to the threat posed by boko haram, including the promotion of specialized training for nigerian security forces. undoubtedly, the nigerian security forces, both military and police, need that assistance in the fight. however, the need is less a matter of personnel and equipment than training, training, especially in

intelligence and investigations. mr. speaker, while some training has begun and u.s. military personnel deserve high praise and thanks for their professionalism, skill and commitment, much more needs to be done. human rights must be improved so eligible soldiers are not wrongfully excluded and intelligence cooperation needs to be expanded. let me also express my gratitude to our embassy personnel who are also working overtime in trying to mitigate this threat and to do the work that the embassy does so selflessly and they're doing a wonderful job and i appreciate their work in hosting and helping with my trip there. . finally, let me say nothing has globalized opinion than the ducks of the chibok school girls and now other girls since, some 20 more girls were abducted by

boko haram. despite escalating threats of terrorism, however, many nigerans, including and especially the faith community, catholics, muslims, have responded with extraordinary courage, resiliency, resolve, and empathy for the victims and they hope and they are working to ensure that boko haram, the whole country is stopped. counter insurgency training and intelligence capacity are among the highest priorities, my hope is more not less will be done going forward in order to mitigate this threat and end the reign of terror being promoted by boko haram. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the majority leader.

53 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my good friend, chris smith. it turns out that he and i were in nigeria around the same time and i am so grateful for his work. he cares so deeply about life, about freedom, about religious liberty as much or more than anybody i know in all of congress. i'm so grateful to him for his great work. it is heartbreaking to see people killed, terrorized, kidnapped, sexually abused, abused in all kinds of other ways simply because of their faith. that is going on in nigeria and all over the world right now. i yield to my friend. mr. smith: thank you, mr. gohmert, for yielding. and especially for your trip there and your concern which has been throughout your entire year

for human rights in general. but also for religious freedom. this is a serious assault on religious freedom. forced islamization. again those muslims who do not agree with the extremism are also targeted, but christians by and large. yesterday's hearing it was said that of the 60 churches that have been destroyed, three mosques have been destroyed during that same time period. this is an attack on the christian faith and it is a slaughter of christians. i want to thank you for your leadership. mr. gohmert: my friend brings up an interesting point. when i was there last week, a couple of the christian pastors from nigeria that were working with the victims, one of them pointed out to me that one of his groomsmen, he's a christian pastor, one ever his groomsmen was a muslim. and they are still very, very close friends. another who is a woman, nigerian

woman, done extraordinary work in trying to help victims, particularly christian victims, one of her sisters that she loves very much is muslim. and the point that they were making is that christians and moderate muslims have been able to live together for hundreds of years, even in nigeria. but this radical islam that has come in, especially in the north, is an abomination. it is antithetical to everything that christians believe and as a result they don't care how peace loving christians may be. you either convert or they kill you. having visited with a couple of the three girls who escaped, there were a number of girls that were able to get off the truck during the night and some others that escaped the school that night and were able to run into the woods in the dark, but

there were only five or six that have actually -- were in captivity and were able to escape. i met with three of them. but a couple of them were talking about it. apparently they were telling the girls, you either convert to islam or your problems get worse. repeated sexual abuse, all kinds ever other abuse. -- all kinds of other abuse. they say convert to islam and your problems are over. the trouble is even when some of these girls at the threat of their very lives converted, which in and of itself is an abomination, their problems were not over. they were still being chided as potential sex slaves for the rest of their lives. so it is something that ought to concern all peace loving people everywhere. i have talked to democrats, friends across the aisle, republicans i know were upset

with what's happening. as i mentioned these victims, aim not sure about -- i'm not sure about people, my friend mr. smith met with in nigeria, but the people i met with had no idea that the u.s. government cared at all because they don't follow twitter. and if you don't follow twitter, you don't know that they have been doing #bring back the girls and making themselves feel very good. it didn't help the victims one iota. they didn't know. as we are told in christian churches all our lives, they won't care what you know until they know that you care. and the twitter doesn't seem to convey that. i yield to my friend. mr. smith: i thank my friend. again the great urgent needs for the nigerian military is actionable intelligence and the

capacity to know what's going on, where, when in very, very real time. and training. there needs to be re-evaluation of the vetting process, the amendment which i agree with, but when good troops and good soldiers and especially good officers are unnecessarily excluded because of a taint that may be ascribed to their unit rather than their individual performance, that needs to be relooked at so we can train. there is a battalion being trained by the u.s., but there needs to be far more training in counter insurgency. i would note, i say to my friend, again i thank him for yielding, i remember a trip to darfur, the nigerian military as been very robust in their peacekeeping, but peacekeeping -- i remember i met with a major in darfur who had also been deployed to sarajevo, and i was very active in the terrible

balkan war and went several times to places, including with frank wolf, that were under siege, when the peacekeepers got there, among them were the nigerians. so peacekeeping is something they have been very generous in deploying their troops to try to help other countries deal with civil wars or wars of aggression. of course terrorist activity as we have seen in darfur. but now that kind of training is not applicable to a counter insurgency effort that takes a very specialized type of skillset -- skill set and that needs to be ramped up exponentially if this horrific threat is to be mitigated and eventually done away with. i want to thank -- mr. gohmert: i thank my friend. we are not asking the united states to go to war in nigeria. it's not necessary. in fact when you go back to afghanistan within four or five months the taliban was totally

defeated without one american losing his or her life, and we helped them with the kind of thing the gentleman's talking about. training, ariel reconnaissance, we drop a -- aerial intelligence, we drop a bomb every now and then. all done without a single american life being lost. after the taliban were routed, there were some c.i.a. agents ho were killed in one of the confinement areas, but that was after basically the taliban had been routed. as the gentleman points out, some training, but the first thing the gentleman named, actionable intelligence. that they can act on. i notice my friend didn't mention that we have got to rovide more tweets in order to

overcome boko haram. actionable intelligence, give them training to help them do this. we have done that in the philippines. we have trained the philippines to protect themselves. they have come along so well, fighting radical islam in the southern parts of the philippines, most people aren't aware, have been a real hotbed for this kind of radical islamic activity. been sikh muhammad had to the southern philippines before 9/11. there's these hot beds. the last thing we need is an area like nigeria where they have been piece loving and peacekeeping people. and now they are suffering from the abuses and the horrors of radical islam. we don't need to lose friends like that. and nothing breaks my heart more traveling abroad than to be constantly asked, why do you appear to be helping our enemies and not helping your allies?

i don't know if the gentleman's -- mr. smith: so many very exleapt points. my friend from texas. they don't want boots on the ground. the nigerian military, the president, what they need is this kind of specialized training, and they need it fast. as we have seen in baghdad, and the threat being posed now to baghdad, and the fallujah, of course, several months ago. mosul, sewell -- now they are highly motivated and capable group of terrorists can do extraordinary damage unless you have people facing them down who have the kind of training and motivation that can -- meet and stop it. let me just say, too, that africa is now the wahhabi secretary and others, extremist elements, are trying to

influence africa to the detriment of moderate muslims who have been best of friends with the christian community. even in nigeria there have been bishops and imams who traveled throughout the country, the country is divided in half. the most populous country if all of africa, about 180 million people. and a version very important democracy. lly of and us. they are at risk because of these extremist elements. we saw it in somalia with al sha bob and the pain that that terrible organization has inflicted on somalia and then as they were being defeated, they are not defeated yet, but as their numbers were lessened, they went over to nairobi and killed o a a market and large numbers of people and terrorized -- these people, eat,

sleep, and drink brutality and imposes on innocent people. they blow up children and women and men. matter of fact one of the untold stories is how many of the school boys are just being summarily executed, particularly in the three northern states. they kidnap the girls as you pointed out. they do horrific things to them. killed some of them. but they just summarily execute the young men. so there's a rain of terror that is under appreciated around the world with regards to boko haram. and you and i and others have been raising this for years. our ambassador yesterday talked about, she was ambassador from twetch to 2010, u.s. ambassador to nigeria, how she raised so many issues. in 2011 the u.n. headquarters was fired bombed by boko haram.

there was an american there. and yet the obama administration refused to designate boko haram a foreign terrorist organization . i asked assistant secretary for african affairs in a hearing in 2012, and then again a year later, why this organization meets the test of a foreign terrorist organization, and why not, especially with the tools that are available through the designation, trying to track the terror money and the means and financing for guns and procurement of weapons. i.e.d.'s and the rest. they just refused. they named three individuals, but they would not do the f.t.o. for the entire organization. a missed opportunity. again like i said on the day before my hearing in december, the administration announced boko haram as an f.t.o.

we welcome it. everybody was glad. we missed an opportunity for approximately two years or more for an f.t.o. designation. mr. gohmert: if that f.t.o. designation, foreign terrorist organization, had been made earlier on, some might ask what difference does it make? clearly it could have made a big difference because if the emphasis had had been placed earlier on at just how much of a terrorist organization boko haram is, they may not have had the power they did to do what they did. i don't know if my friend is aware, but in talking to these mothers and the three girls that had escaped, as they talked about that night, the girls said -- i had not heard this before -- but they paint add picture much like my friend did, painted of other locations of what boko haram and other radical

islamists have done, they came to the school and it's a bit shocking that their intel was not better, but they kept asking the girls at gun point where the boys, where are the boys? they wanted the boys to do exactly what the gentleman said. they'll pull the boys out and kill them. i said, so was it because radical islamists do not think that women should be educated and they said, no, no. the point was it was a christian school and if you're a young man they'll kill you. man or woman, you shouldn't be educated in a christian school en if you're not taught at all. whether it's a christian-run

school, still, you should be killed if you're a young man and abused horribly if you're a young woman. they didn't know there were no boys there and were disappointed when all they had were the girls to take off and abuse them. just a horrible humanitarian situation. but as the gentleman points t, although i've been called people oba, xenophobes, portray us something that we're t, i was amused at the reaction i saw over my shoulders in kabul when there were a few of us that met with some northern alliance leaders. i met with a number of times. dana rohrabacher introduced me to some. i met others. but we were going and they

weren't sure i was going to be able to get across the city to meet them and i was determined and i told the state department, you see that gate out here at the embassy, you're going to have to take me down because i'm getting in a car and i'm going to see our allies. and i was informed, we're not authorized to take down a member of congress, and i said, then you won't stop me. my friend, massoud is sending car. having lost his brother, his father-in-law, he knows about security. he will keep me safe and i'm going to meet him. well, they arranged for a car from the embassy that was secured and we went and when we arrived at their compound and i got out of the car i was surprised this big group of northern alliance leaders came rushing down, including the general, but masoud, particularly, i really have high guard for him. they're rushing down the ports and i noticed my other friends from congress are going, what's going on here.

they're rushing to meet each other. are they going to hit each other? and we embraced. they're moderate muslims. we disagree on religious beliefs but they're the enemy of my enemy and those people successfully defeated the taliban, our enemy. they want to wipe our nation off the earth. and all the northern alliance want is to be left alone and let them run their own area. so it can be done. christians and moderate muslims can live in peace, can embrace, can be in each other's weddings, as happens in nigeria, but when it comes to razzcal islam we have got to call it -- radical islam we got to call it what it is. i was a bit disturbed to hear from people from chibok that they honestly believed that the governor is in can hoots with the -- with boko haram --

cahoots with boko haram or they're sympathetic or afraid of them. there is also grave concern that the principal of that school may have been complicit n assisting in having this happened. that could be an issue because enough intel ve to know there were no boys there. but at least some of the parents were very concerned whether or not the principal was complicit. perhaps the principal was concerned for the principal's own life. who knows? but they don't know that we very and there are some inexpensive things that will come back as bread on the water if we assist others in stopping radical islam right where it is, as our friend george w. bush used to say, they get stopped somewhere else and not right outside or inside our own

homes. that's not the place you want to be stopping them. so i'm so grateful to the gentleman's heart and his efforts. mr. smith: i'd add finally, one of the biggest takeaways, and this was amplified yesterday by ambassador sanders, is there is a huge psychological toll being imposed upon the victims and that the ptsd experienced by the families, especially with the chibok abduction, is enormous. the government of nigeria, obviously, needs to try to ensure that those psychological assistance as well as the faith community which can provide a tremendous benefit to those suffering trauma in the aftermath of it be given that kind of assistance. one of the things that ambassador sanders mentioned yesterday that i thought was a very good idea and that is president jonathan ought to

meet with the families of the chibok girls. one of the things that president bush did and he actually did it in my district as well -- not george but his wife, the first lady, but he did it at the white house and other venues, they met with the survivors of 9/11 and let them know not only that the sympathy and the empathy for their plight was real and the harrowing loss that they endured but as president of the united states george w. bush and his wife said we're with you. we got your back. we care about you. and so respectfully i would hope that the president would open his arms and meet with the chibok family members, the parents who are in utter agony -- as who wouldn't be -- at the loss of their daughters. again, i met with one of those dads who lost two of his daughters to the abduction. doesn't know where they are, 's e the others, and this man

tears flowing down his face and in his case he was one of the muslims. there were a few muslim girls. we don't know how many at the school. it was mostly christians. overwhelmingly christian. his two daughters are muslim. i mean, this trauma is real. we know from the work that the v.a. has done for years of posttraumatic stress disorder, ptsd, that those impacts are lifelong and they need to be addressed, and when i sat like you sat across from some of those young victims, the lucky ones who were able to escape, this poor young 18-year-old girl that i met with was clearly broken and hurting beyond words and yet she kept uttering and saying, but i care about my friends, where are my tears now, and she -- welled up in her eyes. i want to thank you.

there's one other idea put on the table. the victims compensation fund. you know, nigeria does have significant oil wells, resourcing, while there is huge numbers of poor people in nigeria, there's also the idea that there is -- there are resources available and certainly helping some people get their lives back together. when i went to the eternally displaced camp in jos last september, i was struck by the des tude, the extreme poverty -- destitude, the extreme poverty, and there are hundreds thousands of refugees and displaced persons obviously in nigeria but also in the adjacent countries like cameroon, so a victims compensation fund will be at least an effort, a gesture to help out it would seem to me those who are suffering and, again, loss of life, abductions

and now no place to live too, it just gets worse and worse and worse. i also heard stories of people who leave their homes and hide in the bush at night because boko haram at any night could come knocking on the door, ak-47 in hand ready to open fire. so the pervasive fear, especially in the three northern states, is bad and getting worse and, again, ambassador -- our former ambassador said yesterday this is a long war, and nigeria needs to understand and everyone who supports nigeria, it's not going to end with one fell swoop. there needs to be a strategy that takes -- a framework to account that this is a long and protracted war but it has to start now. mr. gohmert: the gentleman met with fathers. i didn't meet with fathers, and why do we not

hear more and see more of the fathers of the girls that were abducted, kidnapped and being brutalized, and i was aware, and some of them talked about, some people choose to leave their homes to sleep so that boko haram doesn't invade their home at night. some of them were explaining and these were all mothers of daughters that were kidnapped. she had two daughters kidnapped. but it's an interesting thing, a deeply troubling thing about evil. sometimes people who do evil, they intentionally do things that make the victims feel guilty. when it's not their fault. one of the things that counselors constantly have to deal with, and i know from

having prosecuted abusive women, you're constantly having to tell them, no one deserved this. no one deserved to be beatened or harmed. nobody. there is no excuse. it's not your fault. as a ere times that judge after sentencing, children would feel guilty and i would say, you have got to understand, please don't leave my courtroom thinking you did anything wrong. one of the things that some of the fathers and some of the mothers, they were telling me they feel so guilty about, that night in the middle of the night they get word, the school's been raided and the girls have been taken.

some of the parents went running and they went all the way to where the school was. they had nothing. they were empty handed. one woman was so appalled that her daughter had been taken she ran out and a little boy had to say, ma'am, take my shirt, take my shirt. wasn't properly -- procedural clad. when they got to the -- properly clad. when they got to the area where the girls were being held, all of the boko haram had ak-47's. they had machine guns, weapons. these people had empty hands. and they were told you either walk away or we kill every one of you and they would have. they'd shown that over and over. they'd kill people and not think twice. they're thinking, well, if they

kill us here, then we have no chance of helping our daughters. , we'll get them free all be -- well, now they're saddled with the guilt of thinking, maybe if we'd gone ahead and ran at them and they slaughtered us, maybe the world would have listened and our daughters would be safe now. they have no reason to feel that kind of guilt. none. ut this is the kind of insidious evil that boko haram is engaged in. it's a travesty of anybody who cares about life or liberty and should be deeply offensive even moderate, semi moderate muslims. they ought to be joining us in this call for an end to the existence of boko haram, to the

taliban, to all those who are so pervasive with evil. this is one of the girls thatress caped down here -- that escaped down here. just breaks your heart when you start hearing hertel her story. -- hearing her tell her story. but a group called -- it's a nongovernment organization, unlikely heroes is the name of the n.g.o. they're helping these victims. ey're helping families and now they're learning that americans care, just this week, i don't know if you heard, but just this week, unlikely heroes said they're now being contacted like never been by victims who were too afraid and felt like nobody cared what difference will it make, now they're stepping up and we don't have to go to war for them but we can help direct their efforts, give them the

intel, give them what they need and then at some point we need to help bring pressure on the nigerian government to make nigeria the people of benefit from the massive amount of wealth that's going somewhere. i sure don't see where it's going in nigeria but it's going somewhere and it's not being kept by the oil companies. it's going somewhere to somebody in nigeria and the people of nigeria need to begin to enjoy some of the wealth with which their land has been blessed and i hope we see that in our lifetime as well. i yield to the gentleman. mr. smith: i thank the gentleman for yielding and, again, thank him for his compassion and for bringing those stories forward and for meeting with those chibok families. what

>> what do you do when you're face down with an. > k-47 and holding a stick. that's basically what happened. i also pointed out one of the things -- i have been there a number of times, i actually am the author as you know of the trafficking victims protection act, america's landmark law in combating sex and labor trafficking, enacted in 2000, i have been there a number of times working with their members of parliament, their congressmen and senators, on trafficking legislation. they have a very, very well written piece of legislation to combat the surge of modern day slavery and human trafficking. there are many fine members of the house and senate. part of the problem has been the corruption in someplaces. in the military in some cases. in other parts of the government. we have corruption here. so we know how insidious as you pointed out that can be. but when the military units that are deployed, a, lack the skill

base and training to deal with a terrorist organization that is highly adept, coupled with the fact we don't have enough munitions, enough capabilities that any military going to war against this kind of threat need to have, -- it just so ham bers their ability to carry on the fight. so that, too, has to change. we are told something like $6 billion in defense spending by the government is what's going on. it seems to me, i said this at yesterday's hearing, perhaps they need an urgent supplemental the way we would do here to significantly upgrade their material. that was one of the first things that the ambassador said yesterday. they have the money to buy this. they need to procure it and do it yesterday. certainly today. not wait any longer so that these troops are ready and capable and trained. so i really appreciate your

point. but they do have a number of fine laws. their legislature is functioning. in many ways, very well. but there's gaps, particularly that need to be addressed. some of the states obviously and the three northern states have some serious problems. so i do think we need to -- we need to be a true ally and pham said rofessor yesterday, we will keep our footprint very light. nobody wants u.s. troops on the ground. that's very clear. but we need to help them help themselves. especially since they have been so generous, the nigerans, in deploying peacekeepers to troubled areas throughout africa and, like i said, in places -- places like the balkans in bosnia. mr. gohmert: there is so much good in nigeria. we should not lose sight of

that. mr. smith: if i could. so much good. the faith community. i spent some time with a number of the catholics, evangelicals, they love god. they really want to do his will on earth as it is in heaven as we are admonished in the lord's prayer. but they face many crippling challenges on the sickness side, malaria is endemic. they made major gains on the hiv-aids pandemic. they have so many issues that they are trying to address, and in comes this horrific boca had a ram organization -- boko haram organization which has taken brutality to a new low and they are capable. it's a gang, well trained gang of bloodthirsty tsh-we have seen it before. look what happened if liberia. and charles taylor who brutalized sierra leone and

liberia. thankfully he got a 50-year prison sentence by the special court of sierra leone. and now is in prison. but the pain that he unleashed through his terrorism. e was the president. here you have a situation where a group of thugs are unleashing hell upon wonderful people. again that's why we can be of help, especially in the area of intelligence and the area of training. of course on the humanitarian side, sharing best practices, ofecially psycho trauma type psychological interventions. mr. gohmert: as a child growing up in mount pleasant, texas, cousins of mine, they are actually my mother's first ousin, but jean and mary lee

d their children, bet, and rinda, were missionaries to nigeria. they would go there for three years and come back to mount pleasant for a year. they would normally live right close to my house. we were always close. went to church together. at each other's houses all the time. so i grew up vicariously learning the love of the nigerian people that the legs had. ary lee had a brain tumor. it was nothing that could be done. she wanted, since it was inoperable, they couldn't fix it, she was going to lose her life, she wanted to die there among the nigerians. that she spent her adult life helping. but southern baptist foreign mission board said no we can't have missionaries dying out there in the field.

you got to come back to texas. so just a block or so from my house is where she was. we watched her. she really wanted to die among the people she loved in nigeria. gene later remarried, jackie and gene were missionaries to nigeria. beth, lloyd, brenda lee they never lost their love for nigeria. and jackie and gene back in henderson, texas, but they still do anything they can for nigeria. i have had the affinity. i have known of the love and graciousness of the nigerian people since my earliest memories. and it's also adds to the heartache when you see what the people are going through. these days. i hope and pray that the nigerian leaders, the governors in the northeast area there,

principals of schools. if they are not complicit, they need to come out and make clear that they are an enemy of boko haram. let consequences fall where it may because when those leaders in those areas stand up and make clear that they do not stand with this kind of evil, then it will give great courage to others. so i appreciate the gentleman so very much and his efforts around the world. there's much to be done. mr. smith: i want to thank you again for your leadership and taking the time to go to meet with all the families and to again amplify the message that we must do more. there is more that we can do. our people that are on the ground there. i was extraordinarily empressed with them, they totally can do, professional, both our embassy

as well as our military people. they want to help. we got to make sure we are resourcing them sufficiently as well. and the government of nigeria, good luck, president jonathan, needs to listen to the indnational chorus. the u.k. is there. the french are trying to be helpful on the intelligence side as well. but it has to be -- they own the leadership of this. they need to step up to the plate. again training. can't emphasize enough the specialized training that could really enable their troops to combat boko haram, needs to be done so urgently and so comprehensively. they need a comprehensive strategy. i neal back. i thank my good friend for yielding to me. mr. gohmert: the former stoig of nigeria -- attorney general of nigeria has also weighed in and working hard to combat radical

islam. it's good to see both government officials and form government officials like that weigh in. mr. smith: i say, you emphasized it with your lifelong love of the nigerian people and your knowledge of them, i think most americans would be very encouraged to know just how strongly faith filled the nigerian people are. whether it be evangelical or catholic or muslim. they take their faith seriously. they are very ethical people. great people. very good businesspeople. i mean infrastructure and other things where roads and bridges and the like were to become even more accomplished throughout nigeria, i mean they -- as nigeria goes, so goes the rest of africa. as often said. they will be a great trading partner. they are already a huge trading partner with the u.s.

that will grow exponentially going forward. again i've always been impressed with the faith of so many africans in general. the nigerian's faith if god is extraordinary. mr. gohmert: that's why the press conference we had with all these mothers and the three , but itting in the back it was amazing to hear the comments of all of those nigerians, all of their comments showed forth faith. it is amazing. i doubt that i would have said the same things that i said there in the press conference here, but since this is a big who were either committed christians or muslims, that were moderate, peace loving people, i pointed out to them that it was obviously boko haram means this for evil. they mean to harm decent,

innocent people just because they are christians. some moderate muslims. but they meant it for evil which brought me back and said to a place a long way from my home in the u.s., but not so far from here in nigeria. just northeast of here. place called egypt where a brother ended up whose 11 other brothers sold him into slavery, and he cried, he wept, he was thrown into a pit, he was a slave, he couldn't understand why god had deserted him, and he ended up being a slave and a servant and imprisoned, but ultimately he became the secretary most powerful man in all of egypt. because he was the second most powerfulman, he was able to save egypt during the famine that no one knew was coming but god revealed to him, joseph, and

when his brothers finally realized who he was and began to weep, joseph told them, you meant it for evil. because it was evil what they did. but god used it for good. boko haram means this for evil. but despite all the evil and all the suffering, god could still work this together for good. and also looked in the camera there and i said, i have a message for boko haram, you think your hate for christians is so powerful no one can overcome it? let me tell you, there is a stronger force than your hate and that is the love of these parents for their children. that is the christian love you find in nigeria. and your hate will never be able

ultimately to win the day over the stronger force of love. i believe that with all my heart. i'm looking forward to the day when love triumphs over the evil of boko haram. mr. smith: before we -- you got here, at least i raised thish issue of adama, he was a man i met in a camp in september of last year, and he did tell the story about how boko haram broke into his house, dragged him outside, terrorists holding an ak-47 right to his nose area, and with his wife weeping, pleading with this man not to shoot her husband, he said you convert or i'll shoot you. he said, i'm ready to meet my lord and he blew his face off. you can see he's had

reconstructive surgery. not only was this man was a living martyr because they survived it, he was bleeding so protuesdayly, when i met him in jos, he didn't have a sin tilla, the slight -- sen tilla, the slightest malice towards the gunman. he said he prays for him. talk about christian love overcoming a terrible hatred, the likes of which we can't understand, and i invited him for him to testify before my subcommittee, you could have heard a pen drop. a lot of the press, including the associated press, led with his story and that's transformative, i believe, to see someone who, you know, almost like our lord from the cross who says forgive them, father, for they know not what they do. here was a man who was a living martyr. i couldn't be more inspired. i saw him again on this recent

trip and the joy he radiates, he radiates christ, you see it in his eyes when he speaks, it was just extraordinary. and humbling because none of us -- i don't know if i could ever react like that. i hope i never do. he had that peace that surpasses all of understanding and, you know, and he was there. he could have died right that day. mr. gohmert: i thank the gentleman. mr. smith: i thank my good friend from texas for yielding. mr. gohmert: i want to finish comments of on our president, particularly in context of what's going on in the world. story says that a white house event on wednesday where the president took questions from tumblr users, president obama addressed what he'd be doing in

he future, but in his comments he made these comments that i just feel reich we have to address -- i just feel like we have to address in light of what my friend, mr. smith, and i have been talking about. the president said, i mean, the truth of the matter is for all the challenges we face and all the problems that we have, if you had to be -- if you had to choose any moment to be born in human history, not knowing what your position was going to be, who you were going to be, you'd choose this time. the world is less violent than it has ever been. it is healthier than it has ever been. it's more tolerant than it has ever been. it is better fed than it has ever been. it is more educated than it's ever been. and with regard, though, to the

less violent, one doesn't have to look too far to see the kind of things that are -- that are going on in this world with the .atest crime statistics indicate violent crime up though property crime is down. here's a story from january of this year from reuters. this is reuters. this is not a group that's ever been particularly kind to me. religious violence across the world hit six-year high, according to the pew study. story says violence and discrimination against religious groups by governments and rivaled faiths have reached new highs in all regions of the world except the americas, according to a new pew research center report. social hostility, such as

attacks on minority faiths are norms, to conform to 198 countries and territories surveyed in 2012, especially in the northeast and africa. this story says except the americas, we commented numerous times here that in recent years it has come to be that there's really only one group in america that it is politically correct to be absolutely intolerant toward and that is the christian faith. it's ok to belittle christian faith. it's ok to belittle the position that marriage should be between a man and a woman. the exact same position the president took when he was a senator in order to become

president because that was very important in his becoming president in 2008. he took the position most people did. marriage is between a man and a woman. and yet now if you take that it is a then -- and christian position. i mean, it's in the old testament, in the new testament jesus himself man shall leave his mother, a woman, leave her home. the two will become one flesh. and what has god joined together let no man put us under. that's marriage. biblical marriage. so anybody that retains the belief that jesus had and that moses conveyed as he got it from god that it was a man and woman. then ld that position now it's become widely accepted, gee, you should lose your job.

you should lose money. you should have the nation turn in hatred upon you and your family. you should never -- heck, some people want you to go to jail. they want you prosecuted. they want the i.r.s., they want everybody after you just because you believe the same thing that senator obama said he believed before he became president and jesus said was actually the law of god and moses said was the law of god but nowadays, you take that christian position and you're a hate monger and we want to destroy you which is in direct opposition to the quote that was so often stated during the revolution. it was attributed to different people. i think more people attributed to voltaire. i disagree with what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it.

it used to be on college campuses they would invite different people so they could get good arguments and good debates among the students. now they don't want anybody who doesn't fit the cookie cutter liberal mode of whoever is in charge at the university. one university, for haven's sake, who would have ever dreamed that the founding that when a muslim woman stood up against the evils of radical islam she would be refused to be allowed to come to the university? it's time we stand up for freedom, liberty here and everywhere. ith that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, for 30

minutes. ms. norton: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i've come to the floor this afternoon to take the opportunity to fully inform members and, yes, members of rights ic of the actual of the people who live in the district of columbia who demand respect for their local laws the way every member would demand respect for the local laws of her own jurisdiction. and, yes, if necessary, i call out members who violate their wn principles of local control of government against federal interference. i'm very pleased that very few

bills that trample on the local rights of the people who live in the nation's capital have been signed into law and very few have gotten out of this house even recently. part of that is because we stand up and fight. we're at some disadvantage. the district of columbia legation consists of me, and we have no senators, but no red-blooded american would sit down while somebody tramples over her local jurisdiction without getting up and saying something about it and, yes, doing something about it. i want to be fair to my colleagues, because some of this, i think, has to do with simple ignorance. some of it has to do with a blind spot. the blind spot is very troubling. the blind spot means that

principles that easily soak into them with respect to every single district in the united states somehow hasn't made it into their heart or their head when it comes to the district of columbia. it troubles me but i believe hat when members think about their own principles they will think before they simply jump into the jurisdiction of another member and her local constituents. now, particularly when this happens repeatedly, we think constituents of the member should be informed. and we try to inform the constituents. indeed, we inform the entire state where the constituents are from if a member insists upon inserting himself into the

ffairs of another jurisdiction normally many miles from home, namely this jurisdiction, and if they need to be called out that's what we have to do. congress 40 years ago passed the home rule act of the district of columbia. it's too bad it took that long to pass, and the culprits there were democratic and republican. and indeed for much of the 20th century they were democrats, although democrats finally got their act together and the home rule act of 1974 was passed. that act gave all local jurisdiction over the affairs -- the local affairs, that is, of the district of columbia to the local government, the council and the mayor of the

district of columbia. my job is to see to it that members remember the home rule the 1974 and not invade local jurisdiction of our city, washington, d.c. i was a little troubled, effect i see no real thus far of a memorandum that came from david monk, the chief of staff of representative peter roskam, the chief deputy whip for the house g.o.p., inviting members to insert special provisions even of a partisan or ideological nature into the upcoming appropriation bills. we've checked and actually we've seen very little of that so far. our concern, of course, is with

such inserts that affect the district of columbia. those kinds of -- by the way, it's interesting that there would be a whole memo inviting republicans to do so. they haven't done so very much on the bills that have come through the appropriation bills that have come through thus far , but i think that probably has a lot to do with how little policy the republicans have been able to get through the congress of the united states. when you're driven to appropriation bills for policy, you've been driven to a very low level for a lawmaker. well, the bait hasn't been much bitten, and i'm pleased of that for the nation. i simply want to say, if such ideological policies attached

to appropriations may be inappropriate for national appropriations, imagine how totally unsuitable they are for an appropriation that may affect the district of columbia. the ay wonder, what is local district of columbia appropriation doing in the congress of the united states? very good question. the bk wants budget you a ton -- the district of columbia wants budget autonomy. we have not quite gotten it yet, and i appreciate we have republican and democratic support for the proposition that the $6 billion we raise in the district of columbia is for us and us alone to say anything about. magine in tea party congress how they would react if somebody had anything to do with their local funds. that's exactly how i'm going to

react. . i'm not going to stand for it. i'm not going to stay quiet for it. and i'm going to see to it that your constituents are meddling in somebody else's interests in violation of your own principles. it continues to happen, but it happens at a far -- far less of a rate than it used to. when i first came to congress i used to have to stand on the house floor for hours at a time rebutting attempts to attach to the d.c. appropriation anti- local control amendments. those are far, far fewer. the appropriators don't like it. the appropriators simply want to get their appropriation bills done. but occasionally some of those will come through. others come through as freestanding bills. and i appreciate that the

speaker doesn't often let those bills get to the floor. but we feel quite insulted when some people decides to introduce a bill to essentially erase what the local government has put into place. a favorite of, one of those sues that continues to apparently invite such meddlers is of course d.c.'s gun laws. the district of columbia has some of the strongest gun laws in the united states. after all, we are a big city. we are the capital of the united states. foreign dignigaries routinely are in our streets. every cabinet official is routinely in our restaurants.

we don't need a lot of guns in a city like this. we have an even stricter gun law. that was struck down by the congress of the united states. we believe in obeying the supreme court and in obeying federal law. so the local government rewrote ts local gun laws. we still have among the strictest gun safety laws in the united states. and of course -- the courts have every these new gun laws time they have been attacked. they have been attacked in the courts. our gun registration requirement was recently attacked in the court and the courts upheld the district's gun registration requirement. the district's ban on assault weapons and high capacity

magazines was attached -- attacked in the courts. and the courts upheld the district's ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. gun ly somebody shot a outside of the white house that reached the window, the upstairs, second floor window of the white house. you sure wouldn't want a lot of those running around the district of columbia, and of course they have understood that. and yet there will be attempts to go at us on guns. i don't care about guns in your district. i ask you to not care about guns in mine. d yet representative jim jordan of ohio has introduced a

bill that would wipe out all the gun laws of the district of columbia. can you imagine that? take every last one of them and wipe them off the books. those are local laws. passed to protect our local citizens. what's he doing in this? we keep winning in court. and this member, representative jim jordan of ohio, has introduced only four bills in this congress. he needs to think about national bills, not bills that trample on the rights of the citizens of the tk district of columbia -- of the district of columbia. we have made a decision. the courts have upheld our decision. i thought that's what the framers, founders of the united states of america for, to allow local governments to remain local.

to have a federal government that took care of things that were not local. this is not local. the gun laws of the district of columbia protects 650,000 people who live here, and visitors who come here. it has nothing to do with representative jim jordan's district. to their credit this bill has not moved. t hasn't moved in committee. and it certainly hasn't moved to the floor. but we resent it was filed at all. because it didn't have to do with anybody's district except the district of columbia. the member who was just on the floor has introduced an interesting amendment. representative phil gingrey of georgia, expressing of sense of the congress -- understand a

sense of the congress measure has no legal effect. and he has, when questioned by the court, indicated that this was a, quote, message bill. using his saging not own constituents but using mine. so this messaging bill said that active duty military personnel in their private capacity should be exempt from the gun safety laws of the district of columbia. but not anybody else's district. now, for the third year in a row i'm going to get this one taken care of. twice he introduced it as a part of the defense authorization bill and twice i have been able to have it taken off. it got passed again in this house. i'm going to get it taken off again.

this country we respect local control. if you were to ask me which side of the aisle speaks most vociferously about local control, i will tell you that side of the aisle. so when republicans interfere with local matters of the district of columbia, they are in violation of some of their most threshold principles. representative jordan interestingly introduced, and i

think this may not have had to do with the fact that it was the new ear anniversary of the town shooting, but that's when he introduced the bill, there were services all over the country. i think he just introduced it because that's when he thought of it and it was on his national rifle association checklist. most recently representative rk meadows of north carolina has introduced a bill that would keep the federal government from deducting as an employer the dues of federal employees. it's a labor right. if you vote that your employer can deduct your dues, you can do

so private and public employer. well, i wouldn't be on this floor if this were a national bill. that's consistent with representative meadows' views. but representative meadows is -- has reached into the district of columbia. now he says, not only federal employees, but he's saying, that the district of columbia deduct nt cannot also union dues as a union member if you ask them to. even though these employees who have asked us to do that are paid for, 100%, by local funds. who would take that in this house? i'm not going to take it. he does so by redefining it. here's the ultimate insult. seeing he has no right to do that, he redefines the district of columbia as a federal agency. for purposes of this bill.

i'm here to tell you, that 50,000 people who are number one in federal taxes paid, number one to the federal government, 12,000 per capita per year are not simply going to take that kind of treatment from individual members of congress. you redefine us. we have been defined as american citizens. we are going to be treated that way. we are no more a part of the federal government than north carolina where mr. meadows comes from is a part of the federal overnment. one of the favorites is abortion. the hyde amendment was expanded. that treated us as a part of the

federal government. interest's a 20-week abortion bill that in order to reach d.c. residents, treated d.c. as a art of the federal government. now comes marijuana decrime falization. -- decriminalization. we had had a hearing on d.c.'s medical -- not medical, but marijuana decriminalization law. i objected there would even be a hearing. there should have been no such hearing. there had been three prior hearings, and d.c.'s law had not even been -- and those prior hearings had not mentioned even the two jurisdictions, there ere two of them, that had made

marijuana legal. and about 18 that are decriminalized. the only hearing that was held was held on a decriminalization law of the district of columbia. who would take that in this house? well, i asked to testify. and to the credit of mr. mica, the chairman of the subcommittee, i was given the right to testify when the 20-week abortion bill, related only to the district of columbia, i was denied even the right to testify. i'm going to find someplace to testify, even if it's on the floor of the house of representatives. because because you're not going to treat the 650,000 americans i represent as second class citizens. not going to do it without protest from their member. a member representative john fleming, was permitted to sit in on this hearing. he's not even a member of the committee. it's all right with me. but then the first thing he did

was to violate his 10th amendment principles. he went on and said i know what i'm going to do. i'm going to try to keep this medical marijuana decriminalization law in the district from becoming law. when we called him out on it and the press went to him, he said wait a minute. i haven't said i'm going to do t i'm waiting to see if i should do t i'm waiting, too, representative fleming. because you said you were going to do it because you could do it. because you think you have the jurisdiction to to it. you don't. -- to do it. you don't. technically, of course, congress could reach into the home rule act and violate the home rule act. you can to that. but who would say that was in keeping with your own 10th amendment principles, your own principles of small government, your own principles that all that matters is local government, your own principles the federal government shouldn't even be in what the federal government is doing?

this is a controversial subject. that's what we have local jurisdictions and states for. to respect our differences. we are a union of states. and we are not all the same. so representative fleming should not be interfering with a jurisdiction a thousand miles from his own. he's introduced only nine bills in this congress. i introduced 57, and none of them interfere with nobody else's business and i'm not going to take it when you come here to interfere with mine. it's interesting. at the hearing there was open disagreement among republican members because there are republican libritarians in this

congress. sometimes they don't abide by their principles, but they are more likely to do so, and he was called out by the member who sense introduced the amendment that passed this house, that keeps the veterans administration from interfering with medical marijuana laws that have been sanctioned by the local jurisdiction. and guess what, that passed this house with 49 republicans voting for it. and i want to say here how much i respect my republican colleagues who tried to put their principles into effect when they seen legislation, national or local, and i ask you to put yourself in my position. should i sit still when you treat the people i represent as if you could toy with them, use hem for messaging?

forget they are number one in federal income taxes paid to support the government of the united states, andry don't even have the same votes you have on this floor. and no senators do i have. i have only myself and my will and my determination to call every one of you out, not only on this floor but to your -- every newspaper in your district, every newspaper in your state, all of those that sent you to congress because you said you were for small government and local control. well, i'm going to hold you to it. i don't know what's going to happen to medical marijuana. i do know this. i don't expect the district law which is here now on a so-called holdover -- what an insult that is. we have to bring our local laws

ere and let them lie if it's a criminal law for 60 days to see if anybody wants to jump up and overturn our local laws. i don't think it's going to happen because i don't think there's that many hypocrites in the congress of the united states. there was a bill, and i'm not going to call out this member's name because it was never introduced, but it was passed around for co-sponsors. it was a bill that reached into something -- i don't even think it was ideological. it was intermeddling. he didn't like it. that would keep the district of columbia from using automatic -- automated traffic enforcement systems. you know, they're the kind of 521 s we have in jurisdictions. 24 states. and somehow the --ry don't know if this member or staff had

gotten a ticket. he didn't say so. all i know is, what in the world are you doing interfering with how we keep people from being struck by cars? maybe we shouldn't have those in some states. we do in this state. the member did not introduce it so i'm not going to call his name on this floor. i can only thank him for thinking about this bill. and i've come to ask, members think very carefully as to what they would do if they were in my place. you had been sent to the house of representatives to represent your constituents. you had been sent to protect them as well as to enable them to have whatever other people in our country had. your member, your constituents -- suppose your constituents were number one in federal

taxes paid to the government of the united states, is there one of you anywhere who would not do as i am doing this afternoon and insist that the people you represent be treated as the full-blooded american citizens they are? that's what we are. we intend to be treated that way, and we will never be quiet about it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, for 30 minutes. r. woodall:

mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the time. i'm here to talk about the federal reserve, and if you want a real stem winder of a conversation here on the house floor, mr. speaker, i recommend the federal reserve. it's nonstop laughs and giggles and interesting information. i can't get started without referencing my friend from the district of columbia who just spoke, and she spoke with such passion. i had the great pleasure of serving on the house rules committee, mr. speaker. as you know it meets behind the wall up here. only committee that meets in the capitol and the delegate from the district of columbia

is often there speaking just as passionately on behalf of her constituents and it's hard ecause as she spoke with absolute certainty about the role that the district of columbia plays, the constitution speaks with similar certainty. and that's what makes it a difficult -- a difficult conversation to have. you know, the constitution set up this governing district and gave those responsibilities to the u.s. congress to administrator. now, the home rule act, and if folks haven't looked at the home rule act, it's a fascinating read, like so many things we do in this chamber, it's done for all the right reasons and has its fair set of unintended surprises along the way. but here's what the constitution says. it's section 8 of article 1 and says, in part this,

responsibilities of the congress. to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever -- in all cases whatsoever over such district not to exceed 10 square miles as made by session of particular states. you remember virginia and maryland both ceded a real estate in order to create the district of columbia. we used maryland's half. we gave back virginia's half. and the acceptance of congress shall become the seed of the united states. of the state -- in which the state shall be. exclusive jurisdiction granted to the congress by the constitution, mr. speaker, but then we passed a statute that gave certain home rule rights and responsibilities away. that's statute, of course, secondary to the constitution. constitution is controlling.

statute's secondary. and that statute grants the rights and the privileges that the delegate was referencing. that happens so often here, mr. speaker, that we have constitution responsibilities. then we have statutory authorities. sometimes those come into conflict. i happen to have one of those on my mind tonight and it's the federal reserve act, mr. speaker. if you're ever looking for a good read, can't quite get to sleep in the evening, let me refer you -- let me suggest the federal reserve act to you. it's not a fascinating read, but it's an incredibly important read and it says in part this. this is the federal reserve act, mr. speaker. you can't see it from where you are but it says this. the board of governors of the federal reserve system and the federal open market committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary policy and credit aggregate commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase

production so as -- and this is the important part. so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates. the authority to control the nation's money supply lies here in congress. the authority to control interest rates as they are related to the money supply lies here in congress and, mr. speaker, the congress delegated that to the federal reserve board through the federal reserve act. and the federal reserve board's mission, again, to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates. now, mr. speaker, we've had this conversation before. if you've ever been in a high school economics class you're thinking, hey, wait a minute, can i really promote full employment and interest rate moderation with the same language? don't i lower interest rates in order to get maximum employment?

n't these things sometimes run countercyclically? i want to talk about how they handled that? because the frustration i hear from folks back home, mr. speaker, is you're the united states, why can't you get things done? why won't you move together? why won't you be effective? and growing jobs and expanding the -- in growing jobs and expanding the economy? i am proud of collaborative things, bicameral things that have absolutely taken us a few steps in the right direction. i wish we're moving in the right direction. i am finding it hard to get agreement five years ago when i came to this body, but the federal reserve then has taken it upon themselves through this federal reserve mandate that i , ad earlier to try to improve improve, stabilize, insert your

favorable word here. they're not villains. they're out to help, try to improve our economy. what i have here, mr. speaker, again, you can't see it. i have the federal reserve's balance sheet. now, what's important about the balance sheet, mr. speaker, i go back to 2007. what you see is the federal reserve's balance sheet is relatively stable. just about over $800 billion. now, again, if you're working in high school economics classes, this is not the millions with an m. this is billions with a b. $800 billion is the typical size of the balance sheet at the federal reserve, but we entered these financial crises 2010, and the reserve he federal balance sheet doubled. it doubled and then it quadrupleled. mr. speaker, in the period of about three months, the federal

reserve's balance sheet went from $800 billion up to $2.4 trillion. now, i want you to think about that. the budget of the entire united states of america, about $3.5 trillion. about $3.3 trillion, $3.5 trillion. in the span of about three months, the federal reserve, created by congress, empowered by congress, expanded its balance sheet without any additional approval of congress . about $1.7 trillion the federal reserve expanded its balance sheet in three months by twice as much as the entire federal government spent in that same period of time. without a single vote, without a single conversation in this chamber, without a bit of consent from the speaker, the

majority leader, from the senate, from the white house. $1.7 trillion. now, you can't see the colors on the chart, mr. speaker. the balance sheet, of course, has a variety of components to it. traditional security holdings that the federal reserve has always had, those actually are a smaller part of those holdings today. what we're looking at in this beige area, it's long-term bond purchases. it's federal government debt purchases. doesn't take a long conversation to begin to get concerned when an entity created by the federal government is actually buying all of the federal government debt or at least a substantial portion of it. what does that mean to our long-term economic growth? federal reserve enacted to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, moderate long-term interest rates. how is doubling the balance sheet, tripling the balance sheet -- now we're almost at $4

trillion, that's beyond quat rupeling the balance -- quadrupling the balance sheet. that's close to quintupling. what does it mean to the long-term economic security of america, mr. speaker? this is something that happens, $4 trillion without a single vote in this chamber, without a single vote across the capitol in the senate, without a single signature by the president, without any consent by the american people whatsoever. $4 trillion in balance sheet expansion, not a single bit of consent of the governed. why is that important, mr. speaker? it's because this doesn't happen by accident. this happens in response to a crisis. now this chamber responds to crises. the administration responds to crises. but the federal reserve responded to economic crisis, tried to do what it could do to