lady candidates that have a chance of increasing the net number of women in the house. and of course in new in the 21st disk dirt -- district, there is a face-off. that is all the time we have this morning on the "washington look for those results tonight and our coverage of the mississippi senate primary. washington, d.c., june 24, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable glenn thompson to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2014, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip imited to five minutes each, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. speaker, growing up darren andrews was known as one of the most selfless and patriotic kids in the neighborhood. not surprisingly, he joined the united states army to serve america. second lieutenant darryn andrews was the platoon leader for third platoon, blackfoot company, first battalion, 501st infantry airborne in

afghanistan. on september 4, 2009, second lieutenant andrews' platoon was on a mission and was traveling along a road in afghanistan when an i.e.d. exploded and disabled the lead vehicle in the convoy. lieutenant andrews quickly jumped out of his vehicle and was assessing the damage of the vehicle that had hit the i.e.d. and he saw through the glint in his eye an r.p.g. coming straight for him and his fellow troops. so in an instant he jumped on top of his fellow soldiers and took the brunt of the r.p.g. he sacrificed himself so that his buddies would live. recently, it was learned lieutenant andrews and his patrol were searching for a ssing soldier by the name of bowe berledal. bronze star. the

his death he left behind his 2-year-old son, his pregnant wife and his twin brother and both of his padres andy and shondra. they were here last week and testified before my terrorism subcommittee. shondra still wears darryn's dog tags. the family lives in cameron, texas. mr. speaker, general george paton said it best about warriors like lieutenant andrews who die in battle. he said, while we continue to mourn the loss of such soldiers, we should thank god that such men ever lived, and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, ending hunger shouldn't be

controversial. it shouldn't be something we ignore -- it shouldn't be something we ignore but rather a goal we embrace. ending hunger is an achievable goal, and it is something we can do if we muster the political will to do so. government, federal, state and local, will play a large role in ending hunger. the problem is too big and too much part of our basic values for government institutions not to get involved. we have already created problems to end hunger, snap, w.i.c., school meals. many of these programs are underfunded and need to be updated for the 21st century. truth is, these programs do real good in our cities, towns, communities and they are working effectively and efficiently. but government can't do it alone, and that's why i'm proud to stand with my friends in the anti-hunger community and supporting their many efforts to end hunger. one such group doing fantastic work to end hunger now is the ood and research action.

frac. frac is not a food bank or food pantry. run by jim wilde, they work with state and nonprofit organizations, labor organizations to address hunger, food insecurity and their root cause, poverty. frac conducts research to document the extent of hunger in america, the impact and the effective solutions. it seeks to improve public policies that will reduce hunger and undernutrition. serves as a watchdog of programs. frac provides coordination, training, technical assistance and support on nutrition and anti-poverty issues to a nationwide network of advocates, food banks, program administrators and participants and policymakers. and lastly, they conduct public information campaigns to help promote changes in attitudes in policies. they help frame the debate in

congress and state legislatures, educating elected officials and their staff and they help implement anti-hucker programs at the local levels. frac does everything but literally hand food to hungry americans, but the work they do has resulted in stronger programs and more eligible people receiving food assistance. mr. speaker, the federal anti-hunger safety net is excellent, but it's not perfect. it's vast but it's not comprehensive. frac works with policymakers and government officials to make these programs better, to ensure that no hungry person is left without food. frac was a leader in our fight to save the heat program in the recently enacted farm bill. it ensures that people get breakfast at school and food during the summer and frac has fought on anti-rider programs. frac has stood with me from day one in my end hunger now campaign. and like me, they believe that

it is solvable. they have organized countless numbers of food stamp challenges, including the two food stamp challenges that i participated in. and they work with important local anti-hunger groups like project bread and the massachusetts law reform institute along with the northeast regional anti-among hunker network. frac is one of the leaders to end hunger now. every single person who works there is committed to a shared vision of a hungry-free america, whether it is expanding kids getting food in the summer. the people are doing everything they can to end hunger. i want to commend jim wilede and all of his time -- wilde and all of his team. i want to thank everyone for fighting to end hunger now. i hope we in congress will be inspired to do more. it's shameful this congress has been so clueless when it comes to ending hunger. we and the white house need to develop a comprehensive plan

with benchmarks and timetables to end hunger now and then enact it. indifference in making believe the problem will go away on its own is not a policy. it's an excuse to do nothing. let's instead follow the example of frac and end hunger now. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf, for five minutes. mr. wolf: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: mr. speaker, i rise today as a follower of jesus and a life-long member of the presbyterian church, u.s.a., and was deeply upset of what happened last week. i feel alienated from this tradition which is the only active clergyman to sign the declaration of independence to submit a statement of protest by the board of directors which expresses a similar sentiment. i'll begin with marriage. after several years of internal discussion and debate, the

assembly voted overwhelmingly to take a position which runs counter to the scripture which defines marriage as the joining of one man and one woman. it has long been clear that our culture is in the throes of this issue. in reality there has been a decades' long assault on marriage, which was almost universally as a god-ordained institution, the nexus of procreation and child rearing has been called into question, both in the larger culture and the framework which governs this land. but perhaps the most striking troubling this is happening within the church itself. which is historically a -- in the gospel of matthew, jesus said, haven't you read that at the beginning the creator made the male and female and said for this reason a man will lead his father and mother and be

united to his wife and they will unite in one flesh. let man not separate. this passage and others like it remind me of reverend billy graham's comments on the leadup to the 2012 north carolina ballot initiative regarding marriage when he remarked, the bible is clear, god's definition of marninge is between a manned and a woman. in addition of marriage, i was troubled by the pcusa's action on israel. i submit for the record a "wall street journal" piece which ran yesterday which divest the denomination stock from three american companies that do business with israel and the west bank citing their involvement in the occupation and the violation of human rights in the region. the pcusa's deeply misguided decision comes on the backdrop of a rising anti-semitism in europe and even here in the united states. i submit for the record a june 20, "washington post" piece highlighting the problem that notes that, quote, jewish

leaders are talking about a fundamental shift of homegrown anti-semitism. the denomination's action on israel stands in stark contrast to its inaction on the persecuted church in the region. the pcusa expressly declined to sign a pledge of solidarity and call to action which more than 200 religious leaders from across the country signed onto. representatives of the american church came together across ecumenical lines to help beleagueured communities, such as the ancient christian communities in iraq and egypt. the pcusa said this action would be an anti-muslim statement. input from faith leaders here in the united states and throughout the region and conveyed that the time has come for the church in the west to pray and speak with greater urgency about the human rights crisis.

with the p.c. u.s.a.'s decision not to urge the call of action, i find myself out of step with my denomination in a profound number of ways. i believe the giants, peter marshall of the new york avenue presbyterian church where president lincoln was there, and also senate chaplain, reverend louie evans, pastor of 18 years at national presbyterian church and reverend james boys, presbyterian church in philadelphia, would find it difficult to recognize the p.c. u.s.a. church today and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. today many members of congress awoke listening to n.p.r. for yet another story about norfolk, virginia, the area of

the united states on the eastern seaboard where we've seen the most rapid increase in the sea level. this matters being home to the largest naval base in the rld, placing in question its long-term survivelt -- surviveability. story in "the washington post" several weeks ago talked about the impact this is happening on the waterfront, including one church that is being forced to relocate. i love the pastor's comment that his parishioners should not have to consult a tide table to determine whether or not they can go to church. the news also included the supreme court's third affirmation of the power of the e.p.a. to regulate greenhouse gases, setting hopefully at rest the long-term battle over whether or not we can deal with

this critical area of carbon pollution. we also have seen a media blitz from a coalition of respected senior officials, republicans, democrats and independents, stretching back to the nixon administration talking about the impact of climate change, particularly as it deals with business. we've had a report from four republican e.p.a. administratorses -- administrations talking about the need for the new rule of carbon emissions. today on the steps of capitol hill, as i passed there were representatives from the citizen climate lobby, from all over the country who are fanning out across the capitol making their case. mr. speaker, the science is in fact clear. we have very severe problems associated with carbon pollution and the impacts that

humans have had on climate. we're looking at reports that ought to sober everybody around here, tripling the number of days of 95-degree-plus weather. thinking about the impacts that rising sea level is going to have on coastal states. louisiana, for example, looking up to 5% of their insurable land being underwater by mid century. perhaps 20% by the turn of the century. . there is a trillion and a half dollars that's likely to be under water of insurable properties. it's time for us to stop debating the science, the science is in fact clear, it's time for us to look at opportunities. the e.p.a. rule is going to go into effect. we all ought to be engaged with

taking advantage of the flexibility that has been proposed by the administration to fine-tune it to the needs and opportunities in our state. it's important that we start work on the implementation of a revenue neutral carbon tax. virtually every expert, conservative, liberal, economics, business agree that having a revenue neutral carbon tax to change the habits of american business and households using the revenues to reduce the impact on lower income citizens and on small business is the quickest, fastest way to be able to make progress in terms of climate protection. we can, in fact, slow the impact and -- in terms of its accelerating impact, and we can prepare for what we cannot avoid.

experts in climate science joined by hardheaded businesspeople and citizen activists all agree that it's time for congress to get engaged. for congress to stop this act of denial and come together on simple commonsense steps that we can make to strengthen our communities to slow the increase of climate change and be able to prepare for stronger opportunities in our local economies as we move to take advantage of this. everybody should take action so that all our families can be safer, healthier, and more economically secure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from -- the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr.

speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from north carolina for his forebarons -- for barons. energy is vital to every aspect of american life. working families, retirees, and businesses large and small are all dependent upon reliable and affordable energy. an unwelcomed increase in the electric bill leaves many families no other option but to cut elsewhere. for businesses, higher energy costs mean less money to invest in jobs or expansion. as business costs increase, so does the price of goods down the line. triggering a chain reaction felt throughout the economy. unfortunately, the obama administration's policies are contributing to the rise in energy costs with policies that discourage exploration of domestic resources and attempt to bypass congress to implement cap and trade. a major way to improve reliability and affordability is to produce more energy here at

home. i'm pleased to join my colleagues as we debate energy solutions and advance an all of the above energy policy to power economic growth and job creation. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from connecticut, iss evidentee d.d. ms. esty -- ms. esty, for five minutes. without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. esty: thank you, mr. speaker. this month as we celebrate immigrant heritage month, we respect upon our unique backgrounds and honor our collective history. but the reality is that our current immigration system is badly broken. immigration reform is not only the right thing to do morally, it's the right thing to do for our economy. businesses in connecticut and across the nation are demanding that we have immigration reform so that they can hire employees and expand their businesses.

i have heard from manufacturers and from biotech companies in my own district who are eager to hire new engineers and ph.d.s, but our current system forces most of the best and brightest who come from around the world who train at our research institutions here in the united states trained at taxpayer expense, we force them to leave this country, taking their talents with them. i've met with dairy farmers in connecticut who cannot find enough laborers to work on their farms. farmers are demanding that congress reform our immigration system to provide a reliable and stable work force that -- so that they can continue to provide local food, milk, and cheese for our families. there are 11 million immigrants who are ready to emerge from the shadows, ready to join the work force, and to grow our economy. people like maria, a mother of

three from mare continue, who brought -- mare dan -- maridan who brought her family here to build a better life. people like twin sisters from danbury who co-founded connecticut students for a dream, to help dreamers navigate the immigration system. mr. speaker, it is time for congress to act. let's honor our nation of immigrants by passing comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders, keeps our families together, and creates an earned path to citizenship. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair now recognizings the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. last week i voted against the defense appropriation bill because of $79.4 billion included in the oco funding. during the amendment process i joined many of my colleagues in both parties in voting to stop

funding the war in afghanistan after 2014. unfortunately we were unsuccessful in this effort and i'm on the floor of the house today because the american people are frustrated with the administration and with congress for continuing to spend taxpayers' money overseas in unnecessary military interventions. i share this frustration with the american people. mr. speaker, i wanted to bring to the attention of the house an article in the daily journal online titled, no end for afghanistan's -- afghan's war. no end for afghan's war on the united states taxpayer. john soptko, the special inspector general for afghan reconstruction may have taken uncle sam and shaken him by the lapels last month but the media missed it. americans, however, need to hear how he in an address to the middle east institute in

washington, d.c., laid out why afghanistan remains relevant and it calls for outrage. for every u.s. taxpayer and policymaker. in short, afghanistan is on life support and joe citizen is its permanent i.v. these are the words of john soptko. this article goes on to say that cigar on the job since 2008 has produced 118 audits and inspection reports and made 23 quarter reports to congress. nothing seems to penetrate the capitol dome, however. they are the quotes from article scote quothing john soptko this. brings me to a quote by pat buchanan with whom i agree strongly on foreign policy issues and i quote pat buchanan. is it not a symptom of senility we e born from the world so can defend the world?

how appropriate a statement is that? we are a debtor nation that has to borrow money every year to pay the debts of our own nation, and we borrow money to spend overseas in foreign areas. it makes no sense. that's why i'm so disappointed that last week we were unable to put a stop on the waste, fraud, and abuse of the american taxpayers' money in afghanistan. now when we also must consider the collapse of iraq, i'm reminded of a quote from my country's first president. in a letter from george washington to james monroe, and i quote washington, i have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a -- enter or a meddle in the concerns of another. that everyone has the right to form and adopt whatever government they like best to live under themselves. george washington. mr. speaker, beside me is a

military carrying the casket of an american soldier killed in either iraq or afghanistan. i bring this to the floor because this past weekend we had three marines from camp lejeune, in the district i represent, the third district of north carolina, three marines in the engineering battalion in afghanistan helping to build roads in afghanistan, the three were shot and killed. that's why i have continued to join my colleagues in both parties to come to this floor and to say to the congress, you're not listening to the american people. the american people are sick and tired of their sons and daughters dying in foreign lands, borrowing money from the chinese to pay for that development in those foreign lands, and we continue to have more and more losing their life,

their limbs. it is time for the congress to listen to the american people, they are the ones that elect us to come here to represent their views and their interests. we are not listening to them as it relates to afghanistan. and i pray for our men and women in uniform, their families, and pray for the families who have given a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. costa, for five minutes. mr. costa: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. this ta: mr. speaker, year marks the 150th anniversary of the yosemite grant act that was signed into law in 1864 by then president abraham lincoln. yosemite national park, one of our nation's greatest treasures. yosemite receives over four million visitors annually.

all who come to experience our breathtaking scenery and wonderment that the park provides for all americans. as a californian, and a long-time supporter since my early childhood, i understand the importance of safeguarding our precious national resources. yosemite is an integral part of our communities and our country and it's also a great source of plied for -- pride for all californians. therefore we must work together despite the challenges we face, to not only preserve yosemite national park for future generations to come, but for all of america's great natural resources. yosemite is just one of many of the crown jewels of america's national park system. it's beautiful and ma jess particular park -- its beautiful

and majestic park is obviously something to behold and where visitors come every year from not only across america but throughout the world. for all americans we must remember that yosemite national park represents among the best of america. as it has been said before, america's national parks perhaps america's best idea. therefore it is my honor to celebrate the 150th anniversary of yosemite national park, the first park designated in our country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gallego, for five minutes. mr. gallego: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gallego: thank you, mr. speaker. today i'd like to continue our

journey through the vast 23rd strict of texas and talk felipe del rio. it was founded by the spaniards in the 1600's, local lore talks about the spaniards offering a mass there on st. phillips day in 1634. hence the name. when the local office was established in 1883, the name was condensed simply to del rio in order to avoid confusion with felipe in austin. it has been carried forward by those with innovation and entrepreneurship in their blood. e om the santa pil manufacturing company which first harvested the clear waters to satisfy the theirs of crops, to julio's corn ships which went from a small town favorite now being mailed to texans abroad who want a little taste of home. from the guys over war torn europe, the rio has a long

history of accomplishment and continues to contribute to the safety and security of our nation. in 1942 during world war ii, the war department opened lalkland field as a training base to prepare pilots for high-risk missions over european skies. in 1962, u-2 high altitude spy planes that played a critical role in the discovery of russian missiles hidden in cuba were stationed at lackland air force base in del rio. this would eventually lead our nation to having the resolved to win that cold war. they trained the greatest pilots in the world and serving as a base to guard the borders. del rio is a cultural hub and it's an example of how many cultures can blend together to

form something exciting. you can go to a winery that is the oldest winery in texas. you can learn about regional history and see the whitehead memorial museum or go to the live theater group. in fact, if you like the outdoors, visit seminole canyon, not far from del rio, which has one of the largest collections of indian pictographs anywhere in the world. or visit the devil's river, which is the last river in texas still in its natural state. if you're a sports fan, there are plenty of sporting events to catch, such as the mighty ram football team or the annual fishing tournament held on lake amistad, which is a national recreational area run by the national park service. so if you find yourself near del rio, i invite you to experience the culture, take a dip in the san felipe creek or

to catch a theater show and bring back a bag of julio's corn chips that i'm sure you are to enjoy. thank you, mr. speaker, for letting me talk about the 23rd district of texas, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, ms. frankel, for five minutes. ms. frankel: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask permission to address the house and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. frankel: mr. speaker, i just returned from a congressional delegation trip to nigeria which was both eye opening and moving. nigeria is a country of huge possibilities. it's an oil-rich nation, the largest in africa with a population that will surpass the united states by 2050. it's meyered with corrupt political -- mired with corrupt

political leaders and military and police, leading to a dire political climate of joblessness in the northeast, giving rise to a terrorist organization mostly of young men who call themselves boko haram. they burn schools, they burn churches, mosques, police stations. they rob, they steal, they kidnap and murder innocent victims in their path. their violence have resulted in the deaths of thousands in the last decade. boko haram's most notorious activity, which was the focus of our trip, was the recent kidnapping of 270 innocent girls attending school. these girls remain hidden, most likely scattered and subjected to unimaginable crimes. this kidnapping received

international attention for a short time and then, like the girls, disappeared. while in nigeria, we met with victims of boko haram as well as political, military and civic leaders. we learned of the horrific suffering at the hands of boko haram and the inability of the corrupt nigerian government, which is involved in a competitive upcoming election. but their inability to stop their violence. embedded in my mind are the oung girls who told us harrowing stories, how they escaped boko haram terrorists while their friends tragically remained behind, and we met with a weeping father of one such girl. and i will never forget the story of a young mother who witnessed boko haram decapitate her husband's head and left her

dying in the street with her throat slit. she survived physically but has been left broken financially and, of course, psychologically. we spent time with a team of knee jeerian, u.s. -- nigerian, u.s., british law enforcement put together to strategize the return of these girls. and now, mr. speaker, some quick observations of mine to a very complicated situation. as i have said before, there are some crimes against humanity that no -- know no borders, that requires response no matter where you live in the world. the kidnapping of 270 girls is such a crime and could not be treated such as a slaver of the weak just soon to be forgotten. and that's why the united states and the international

community must continue to apply pressure to the nigerian government to do all it can to negotiate the safe return of these young girls to their families. and for those citizens who want to join this fight, i join my colleague, frederica wilson, in asking the people of this country and the world to tweet #bringbackourgirls every day at 9:00 a.m. we should continue to call upon the nigerian government to set up a relief fund for the victims and the families of boko haram with the financial and medical care that they so need. and the united states should continue our efforts with the fusion team and quickly respond to the team's request for a strategic plan.

mr. speaker, we must continue to advise nigerian authorities on the need for transparency and honesty and the need to deal with the economic plight of their people and to urge a free and fair election coming up. as i said from the start, mr. speaker, nigeria is a nation of great possibilities. it can be one day a giant economic partner for the united states and our allies, or it an become a safe haven for terrorists. we can keep it on the right path by bringing those girls home. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

approval of gas pipelines across borders. members will debate six bills tonight under expedited rules, including a bill authorizing u.s. intelligence programs next year. votes scheduled throughout the day. alas well planned about 6:00 a.m. eastern this evening. the senate is working on nominations, couple judicial nominations. c-span2. senate on the house oversight and government reform committee is holding their second hearing on practicescordkeeping in the loss of an unknown number of e-mails related to lois lerner.

testifying is archivist of the united states and attorney jennifer o'connor who served as special counsel to former acting may tomissioner from november of 2013. ms. o'connor now working in the white house counsel's office. -- the efforts and how much he is relied on as a nonpartisan, i think it would advisable.ery >> mr. chairman, i appreciate that. my wife is ill and i have had to go home -- >> you certainly have our sympathies. >> i appreciate that. thank you. >> the gentleman from ohio. >> in the six months you were at the internal revenue service, who was the person in charge of getting the documents that to this wanted committee and the ways and means committee? >> mr. were full told as his

directives. >> who was in charge? >> i served as a liaison between him and the team -- >> was it you? were you the person in charge? >> i was not working on it full-time. >> when we interviewed mr. welcomes, he said it was you. he said implicit spots will for collecting the documents, we asked who was responsible for the rosses, and he said it was tom and jennifer, and he identified you as the chief arson. in the six months you were there, this is a huge story. a huge player in this took the fifth. it is in the news everyday. you are telling us you do not have any inclination that a bunch of lois lerner's e-mails were lost? >> i did not know they were missing and unrecoverable and that there had been a laptop crash. >> when you did learn, what was

the day that the white house counsel's office learned weird we were told last night that he knew in february there was a problem and he knew in march there were lost e-mails. he did not tell us that the end of march. someone at the white house learned in april, but we did not learn until june when they sent a letter and we can half ago go. when did the white house counsel's office learned that there were lost e-mails? >> so i just got there -- >> i understand. >> i was not there in april. i have seen the same letter that you have seen. >> do you know the date? >> i do not. >> is it fair to say april? that is what your boss said, that it was sometime in april. is that accurate? >> i have no reason to doubt that is true, but i was not there. >> who from treasury told the white house counsel's office that the e-mails were lost? do you know who that was? >> i don't know. >> you do not know who was in

the meeting? >> i would love to be helpful. i just was not there yet. >> once they got that information, did they tell anybody else? at ther boss tell staff white house? did they tell the president? >> again, i am sorry, i do not need -- mean to be a broken record, but i was not there. >> you ask -- we asked you to come to this meeting a week ago. we learned in april. the congress did not learn until june. you do not ask any of your colleagues? how many lawyers are in the white house counsel's office? approximately 25? >> i am sufficiently new, and i have not been a headcount. >> i understand it is about what he five. did you talk to those folks about what you would be answering questions about today? i was told the reason you wanted to talk to me was to understand what i learned at my irs.at the i obviously did not have a lot of time to prepare.

>> you do not think about the fact of the white house knew in april and the people's house did not know until june? you do not think there was a duty to figure out who gave you the information in who the information was shared with? .e do not get it months later >> i would like to be as helpful as i can with what i knew. likes it would have been helpful if you had answers to those questions. the white house counsel's office, once the got the information that lois lerner's e-mails were lost, do you know at the white house counsel's office told the fbi and the justice department? >> what i can tell you is what i knew when i was at the irs. >> i'm talking about now. you work at the white house counsel's office. they knew this information in april. we did not know it until june. two months time difference. remember what the president said, he said he is angry about this. people have to pay. this is outrageous. this is what he said when the

scandal broke. i am wondering if you get important information like lois lerner's e-mails are lost -- did you share that with the agency doing the criminal investigation? that it was serious and get it to the fbi and justice department? >> i am happy to answer questions about my time at the irs. >> i am asking if your boss, when they got the critical information, did they share it with the justice department? >> he actually started the same day i did. >> he is the one that wrote the letter saying they learned in april from the treasury's chief counsel. when he got that in orton information, did he get it to the folks running the criminal investigation? that is important. or do you think there is no duty, no obligation to share that with the justice department that is running a criminal investigation? they can just sit on the information? >> the gentleman's time is

expired. you may answer. >> i am happy to work with you and your staff to try to get you information as we can answer your questions -- >> that was not the question. the question was, do you think the white house counsel's office has a duty to share critical information about lost e-mails with the justice department when you knew that two months ago? >> ok, i think the question is now understood. can you answer that question, please? >> my answer would be that i am ire as a witness about facts learned that the irs. to the extent about activities at the white house, i am happy to work with you and see what we can do to get answers. that is not what i am prepared to talk about. , hehen a question is asked is asking if you have an opinion as to whether or not knowledge of a crime should be referred or the knowledge of something you think is a crime should be referred, it really is a yes or

no or i do not feel -- >> i am happy to answer that. i think knowledge of a crime should be referred to the fbi, yes. >> thank you very much. patient gentlelady from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. o'connor, has it been determined that the crashed hard drive was a crime? >> not as far as i know. >> thank you. so when the white house -- let's go back. last night, the commissioner testified that he found out about the crashed hard drive in april of this year. were you working at the white house at that time? >> [inaudible] at the did you start white house question mark >> just about a month ago. >> middle of may? >> yes. >> ok. do you have any information prior to the middle of may or in april question mark where the

white house have called you and told you that they received information or did not receive information in the irs before you started working there? call me from the white house. >> so you would not have known. the current commissioner testified he only learned in april that the crash happened, and in that process, they were still trying to cover some of the lost e-mails. they have managed to recover some of the e-mails that were lost, because even though they were crashed and lost from lois lerner's account, they were of then the two accounts people who received the e-mails and they were sort of going through that process. it is i no means complete. again, this happened in april. would you have had any knowledge of that? >> i would not have had knowledge of that. i think the measures that they described that they went through sounds exhaustive and appropriate.

>> let's go back to the five irs.s you worked at the my colleagues have indicated testimony, youis were identified as the person in charge of employees whose job it was to produce the documents requested by the committee. did you write the evaluation for all of those employees? >> none of them directly reported to me. my role was as an advisor and i did my best to help them and advise them and work with them and with the committees, essentially making sure that the team working day-two-day did this all day long, all night long, they work very long hours, and they knew the priorities for which material would be produced and what the search terms were supposed to be. many of the investigating committees, including this one, had specific requests, please get me the training materials or what-not. i tried to facilitate that and

help the team figure out how to prioritize what reviewers were looking at, what materials they could move quickly, those kinds of things. i played a role, but i did not write any performance evaluations because they did not report directly to me. >> you played an advisory role, but you have no direct response abilities in terms of evaluations. you simply advise them as they go through the process. then your job is to report back to mr. werfel on the progress of the effort, correct? >> i do not want to leave the impression i did not work closely with them. i did, but i was out their direct supervisor. >> ok, thank you. the really interested in process. i want to make sure we get that enough attention. one of the things that astounded me will -- me last night was when i learned only records that

irs employees determine relevant and thenprinted out archived. but it was up to the individual employees to decide what would be and what would not be. i am looking at the national archives and record administration bulletin 2013-02, guidance on a new approach to managing e-mail records, which talks about capstone. i would like to have this entered into the record. without objection. >> thank you. it actually says -- talks about policy and about previous session in, if conducted, that would mean you would assume physical custody, a copy of all the records, well before the time it is in legal custody. can you describe that process and how it would interact with individual employees? >> i will take that -- >> ok, i am sorry.

>> with that policy, what we want to do is offer agencies the opportunity to transfer physical custody of e-mail records to us so that we can injure their preservation at the national archives so that they are not -- so we can ensure their preservation at the national archives. this was a way to ensure adequate preservation of archival records, the 2% to 3% of records that come to the national archives. we maintain them physically. at the time of transfer, which 30 years 15 or 20 or after the date of their creation, then make them available to the national archives access programs. irs employees, for example, cannot actually go and delete the copy that you have. >> they would be interested to the national archives it self. they would be in our physical custody. even though they would still be in custody of the irs.

>> that would be useful. my time is up. >> thank you. i ask unanimous consent of the press release from the treasury inspector general for tax administration, dated november 20 1, 2013, be placed in the record about without objection, so ordered. it is entitled -- increased oversight if needed of the internal revenue service's information technology hardware maintenance contract, and the goat into the tens of millions of dollars that were spent in on maintenancer that was neither needed, nor was .t performed we now go to the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a bit in your testimony, you state that when agencies become aware of unauthorized obstruction of federal records, they are required to report the incidents

to the archives. through lastn 2011 monday, did the irs report any loss of records related to lois lerner? >> no. >> is it fair to say the irs broke the federal records act? >> any agency is required to realize theyn they have a problem that could be destruction or disposal, unauthorized. >> but they did not do that. >> that is right. >> did they break the law? >> i am not a lawyer. >> you administer the federal records act -- >> i do. >> if they did not follow it, can we safely assume they broke the law? >> they did not follow the law. >> i think you have got a witness who is smart enough to know that he knows he would have liked those records.

he would like to have gotten those records. he was entitled to the records. but he will at the -- but he will let the lawyers argue out. >> the general american republic would not get away with that before the irs themselves. to say they did not report a specific page or specific document. that is the frustration. i hope those watching understand we're dealing with a law here that was broken. it was broken by our agency that has the power to tax, which is also the power to destroy. general, io, in guess, could you briefly describe for us the print and ?ile record-keeping process >> i would like to take that question for you. first, i need to apologize about intimating that the federal records act itself says print and file. so the federal records act does

not stipulate that you have to print and file. it is a practical activity that most agencies have adopted as part of their policy so as to ensure that federal records are identified and put into official record-keeping systems within agencies. the connection to the federal records act is based on an analog and paper model for managing records, and as a practical matter, most agencies, if not all agencies across the government, have had print and file policies were individual employees are required to identify what federal records are and put them into the record-keeping copy of -- within their agency for retention, according to records control schedules that the united states approves. what we're trying to do is the capstone policy and the activities on managing government records, to automate this process so that we can eliminate the human intervention and the likelihood or possibility of humans making

errors and agencies losing control of records. print and file has a long history of human intervention, whether it is printing it on paper and putting it into a file folder or clicking and ragging an electronic file into an electronic file folder. >> the irs has the policy? >> the official policy as we understand it is the print and file. >> in general, do you think it would be sufficient for the federal records act for an employee to save e-mails that are federal records to a local folder on the computer hard drive instead of printing goes out? >> it is inconsistent with the guidance that the irs has given to their employees. their official guidance as to print and file e-mail records, in this case, to paper him and put them into the system. >> if an employee were to deliberately not comply by not printing up their e-mails, would they be subject to any sanctions under the fra?

if so, what sanctions? >> i am also not a lawyer. it is not an enforcement statute. what we do with agencies when these sorts of issues arrive is at them report to us what has occurred. in the instant were e-mails or other references have been alienated or destroyed, then what are their plans for reconstructing those records or are they putting plans in place to make sure that does not happen again in the future? >> let me complete the questioning here. if a federal employee's hard drive crashes with no warning and no backup of the e-mail exists, do you believe it is proper for an agency to assume that no records were lost? >> no. >> that is the question. billion question that i hope we can ultimately get an answer to. i yield back. >> thank you, gentlemen. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. night the actual chairman, chairman issa, take extreme action by issuing a unilateral subpoena to the white house. he demanded that ms. o'connor show up here today within 24 hours and under threat of contempt. there was no vote on this subpoena. the committee did not debate it. members did not have the opportunity to weigh the gravity thehat the chairman did in committee's name. now we find out how misguided that subpoena really was. ms. o'connor, let me just confirm what we have heard here this morning. you were not at the irs when employees were using an appropriate search terms. is that correct? >> i was not at the irs during the time covered by the

inspector general's report. >> you joined the irs after the report was issued, correct? >> yes, i joined on may 30, 2013. >> any left in 2013 which was long before the irs made these recent discoveries this spring e-mails, lerner's correct? >> correct. >> you joined the white house about a month ago? >> about a month ago. >> according to a u -- a u receive from the white house, that was after the treasury department and the white house in april about potential perl -- problems with lois lerner's e-mail, right? >> i have seen that letter, and it refers to an april referral or informing in april, yes. >> thank you. i, quite honestly, do not understand how chairman issa was able to rush to issue the

subpoena to force you, ms. o'connor, to be here today within 24-hour notice. your connection to this topic at today's hearing is at best a stretch, and all of these questions could have been answered by simply picking up the telephone and asking. it's a continuation of the same charade that this chairman uses this committee to perpetuate. what's further insulting about this is that the chairman promised to use the authority of this committee responsibly. let me read what the chairman "aid back in 2011 and i quote i will take the thoughts on why you direct. i will ask other members of my committee if i am doing the right thing and i will also undoubtedly talk to other members on your side and say am i nuts, am i wrong, is this

somehow a subpoena outside the mainstream? i don't intend on simply writing subpoenas endlessly but that's exactly what chairman issa has done. since he became chairman four years ago, he has issued more than 50 unilateral subpoenas. he has never once allowed a debate and he is never allowed a vote. not only do these actions contradict the promises that he made four years ago as the chairman but they result in on warranted and abusive subpoenas like the one he issued last night. caremany constituents do about the issue of the wrongdoing that occurred at the irs. and there are members on the other side of the aisle who i have listened to to try to understand the concerns about the lack of accountability of those individuals who should be

held responsible. unfortunately, that is not what the chairman has allowed us to focus on in any of the hearings we have had dealing with this matter. in fact, he has use this process to politicize the process and to not focus on the proper oversight or government reform function of the committee. perhaps this should not be a surprise because during an interview on august 19, 2010 before chairman issa came to the committee, he was asked what he planned to do with the ability to issue subpoenas and his officers,as " cabinet assistant secretaries, i will be able to take on everybody that the president hires and relies upon." he has certainly made good on that promise. i yield back my time. >> the chair would now recognize

the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the ranking member brings up legislation about electronic preservation. that is pretty much immaterial if you don't uphold the rule of law, right? >> the hope is that -- >> the hope is that if you don't uphold the rule of law and you can pass all the legislation you want to, it not make a hill of beans, right? >> that's true. >> how about you, ms. o'connor? >> the importance of upholding the rule of law, very important. >> i want to read the former supreme court justice brandeis made a comment. the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law strictly. if government becomes the law picker, it breeds contempt of the law and invites every man to become a law unto himself and will promote anarchy. civil society is important in following the rule of law. would you agree? >> yes. . >> mr. fiero you found out

potential losses of documentation by the irs. >> through the letter in june. >> you are aware that federal states that6 cfr agencies must report promptly any unlawful or accidental removal, to facing alteration or destruction of rate -- of records. truetrue? >> true. >> that's what i thought. we got a problem. i cited the articles of impeachment yesterday for president richard nixon and cited the information about the irs. people are scared of the irs because they have the power to attack and destroy. wouldn't you agree? >> i know that people are afraid of the irs, yes. >> missing documents, similar to missing tapes minutes, wouldn't you agree? >> i'm not sure they equate. missing material,

missing records, the same, agreed? >> missing material. yes, and we have not follow the rule of law so everybody is scared to death of this one application of bureaucrats and there's another application to the regularly people on the street. it defies me. ms. o'connor, you have been in the clinton white house. helped the clinton administration with the teachers union strike and you were quoted as being a veteran of washington battles. would you agree? >> i have been here a long time. >> you know the process, right? >> i'm not sure which process you are referring to. >> the bureaucratic inside the beltway politics process. you know about these record-keeping aspects? >> i'm not a record-keeping expert. >> but you are an attorney.

you have to know when there is a problem and you don't have records, you know to report it, right? >> i know if you discover that records have been lost and not recoverable, it needs to be reported, yes. >> let's go back through this again -- the accidental removal, defacing, alteration or destruction of records in custody -- is not just the law on its and essential problem. irs, thereure at the was no inferences, ms. o'connor, that there was some sequencing problems or problems with the 'smails out of ms. lerner office? >> nobody raised the issue that arose here which is an identification that some of the e-mails -- >> i did not ask about missing but there were problems with e-mails. even the commissioners said it was known there were problems with her records. >> i don't recall knowing-- >> no one reported there was any

problems? >> i don't recall anyone telling me there were problems. >> would you? >>? >> the conduct in front of this committee and turf conduct -- and her conduct of supplying a question to the audience. as an employee and somebody supervising records, would you say the conduct of ms. lerner is normal? >> just to break it out, the question at the conference would not be something i would advise. in terms of the laptop situation, my understanding from tookaterials is that she quite a number of efforts to have the laptop reconstructed and that seems to be appropriate. >> you could also look at it from the standpoint of america looking at it as covering up her crime, too. >> i have no evidence that the case. >> it's pretty interesting that you could actually try to cover that up in regards to the way

you look like you're coming off on disclosure. let me ask one last question -- the way she took the fifth, is that normal? >> i don't have any point of reference for that. >> you have seen plenty of taking the fifth. >> i have not. >> i yield back. >> the chair would now recognize the gentlelady from illinois, ms. kelly. >> thank you, mr. chair. o, it is required by law to ensure the investigation of all allegations of opera it use of federal records, is that correct? >> we don't actually do investigations. we are charged with ensuring that we follow-up on any reports we have an urge the agencies to conduct such an investigation, yes. you just said you don't investigate the allegations yourself. but you do instruct the institutes to conduct on their own? >> yes. >> during the bush

administration, from 2001-2008, the national archives reported they opened 92 cases into whether agencies properly disposed federal records. does that sound correct? >> i believe it does. >> if you do the math, that was more than 11 years ago or almost one per month. is it fair to say that such allegations are relatively common? the allegations are common. i was suggested is not unique to administrations but it is reflective of the challenges that all federal agencies have with this issue. >> on june 17, the national archives and record administration sent a letter to the irs chief in the office of records and information management indicating the loss of some of ms. lerner's e-mails may constitute an abba -- an unauthorized disposal of federal records. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> is record retention a problem

exclusive to the irs ? >> no. >> at 2008 government accountability office investigation found evidence that several federal agencies including the department of homeland security and the department of housing and urban development admitted at least one requirement of national archives regulations related to proper management of electronic records. it certainly appears that federal agencies across the administration have struggled with record retention. is the irs role in developing a long-term solution? >> let me start with just describing the state as being self and -- self identify. over the past four years, we have been working with each of the agencies to develop a self-assessment of where they stand in terms of their control

over special electronic records. the data shows a high percentage of the agencies self-report that they are at high risk. that is why we have created the directive and are moving ahead to create the solutions to those problems. >> and what can agencies do to mitigate this long-standing problem? there are a number of ideas, most of which are captured within the government records directive. to identify ways to automate these processes to take the human intervention out of the activity. that is where the highest risk for error to occur and other things to occur that do not ensure good record-keeping. to the extent we are able to have industry days and identify private sector vendors and get their ideas about how this

categorization and automation can take place on e-mail and other electronic records and then identify what the minimum electronic records management requirements are that the national archives needs to promulgate to the vendor community and the federal agencies so they can better manage this electronic content. those are some of the things we're working on so we can meet those deadlines of the directive. as theould seem technologies improve, the amount of information that agencies must manage and appropriately store increases. how important is it for agencies to make improvements to information systems to ensure full compatibility with new technology? >> it's very important. they need to think about this in several kind of sectors. one is the policy piece which the national archives is most responsible for in giving that piece and organizing their thinking more creatively how to manage records in automated

sorts of ways with our support and thinking about the technology issues and working with the vendor community and the private sector to understand how automation can be added in cost-effective ways to make this happen and then identify ways agencies, and a fiscal release possible way, at this technology and implement these changes so that agencies are managing their records and protect the rights and interests of the government and from our perspective come make sure they can get the herman records into the national archives we can make them available to future generations. >> there are couple of other aspects of this erected that are very important. directive calls for the appointment of identification of a senior agency official, not the records manager but the senior official that takes responsibly within that agency. it raises the profile of record management and the agency. at the same time, where walking that we are working with the office of personnel management to create for the first time a

records manager. there is no such thing right now there is we have a variety of credentials that are in operation across the federal government. >> thank you, my time is up. >> the chair will now recognize the gentleman from tennessee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. o'connor, i want to ask you a few questions. what was the reason you were hired in may of 23rd in to join the irs? dayr. warfel called it a after i started and said he had taken this significant challenge and was trying to add a few extra people to help them, chief of staff, risk officer, and the counselor and our project was to help them as needed in various ways to run the irs which was facing new leadership and had the problems i know your

committee knows about. >> your chief counsel testified before this committee that you were a key supervisor of the irs documents. was he correct? >> i don't quibble with what he says but i was not working on that full-time. there was a large number of people working very hard full-time but i worked with them to try to help them. from your time at the irs may, 2013 until november, did you coordinate the irs response to congressional request for documents? >> i worked with the staff of the committees to make sure i understood what they needed. i was certainly a part of the process of making sure what they were asking for was delivered to them. >> did you review e-mails related to irs targeting? >> the review process involves an enormous number of people who were in sort of tears. >> did you review e-mails? >> i was not in the set of

employees doing the first or second level of reviews. >> did you read act e-mails? >> no. > >> did you determine the schedule of making documents to the committee? >> the schedule is as quickly as we can. >> you did do that? >> it's determined by the calendar. >> you did make the schedule? >> it was determined by the calendar. we looked at how quickly we could amass -- >> who decided when the document -- when the irs would make a document presentation/ >> it was really the calendar and the effort was to do it as quickly as possible. >> did you interact with the treasury department? >> yes. >> how? >> telephone calls and in-person. >> what did you discuss? >> it was a variety of things. irs is obviously part of the

treasury department and mr. warfel reported to secretary lew and there was a variety of things a different meetings. >> did you update them about the response to the congressional investigation of targeting? >> i did reduce updates of when we would produce documents like emily documents and that kind of thing. >> did you interact with the white house while at the irs? >> as i explained earlier, i had the one interaction where i went with mr. warfel as he presented his 30 day report to the president. >> just one time? >> other than that, i had communications with them. >> who was your point of contact at the white house? >> for what? >> when you are interacting with them? >> i did not have one. , weren you joined the irs you trained on preserving federal documents or federal records? >> there was an enormous amount of training i think it included

record management. but it's hard for me to remember. >> it included preserving e-mails and federal records? >> i think so. . >> who provided it. >> it was computer-based. >> did you backup your official records while at the irs? my computer,at because i was in the counsel's office, was being backed up. when i left, my records were all copied by theit staff in the counsel's office. ever aware of an attempt not to preserve iris records by any irs employee while you were there? >> no, i'm not aware of that. >> did you store your e-mails on your hard drive? >> i don't know. >> do you know what the size of your e-mail box was? >> i don't know. that's fair enough. >> i have no further questions. >> i would like to point out

that the speaker of this house today admonished all of us that we need to show respect to all the witnesses who come before us. in fact, he said we invite people to come and provide testimony and franco, they should be treated with respect. i believe respect includes asking a question and then allowing a witness to fully answer the question and not cutting them off. i am hopeful that as this hearing and other hearings move forward, we will continue to show respect as the speaker of the house has recommended to us. o'connor ams. question or two. chairman issa issued a report entitled " how politics led the irs to target conservative tax exempt applicants for their political beliefs." the report alleged the president's political rhetoric

is what led the internal revenue of tax's targeting exempt applicants. ms. o'connor, two juicy any evidence that irs employees were motivated by politics or political bias in screening applicants for tax exempt status? earlier, i said joined the effort after it started at the end of may and i left midstream at the end of november. i did not see all the documents that were produced even while i was there and continued to be produced and i did not talk to witnesses. all that said, i did not see any evidence. >> are you part of a government wide conspiracy to target president obama's political enemies? >> absolutely not. >> are you here voluntarily and not as a hostile witness? >> i am not hostile but i received a subpoena. >> would you have come had you not received a subpoena last night? that wenitial response

gave pointed out that i did not have a lot of relevant information because i had only been at the irs for six months and it was after ms. lerner's material was collected and that shee discovery had e-mails that were not recoverable connected to a computer failure. wasink the initial reaction that there would be many better witnesses for this committee. >> all right -- for a long. of time, the irs did not back up their records. in fact, it was incumbent on each of the employees to print a copy of any e-mail they thought was relevant for historical perspective which is alarming in and of itself. it is also pretty alarming that they are still using windows xp which was first used in 2001 and

microsoft does not even support that anymore. for every american who pays taxes, there is a great sense of thaturity in not knowing any communication they have with -- its, they, in fact may, in fact be lost for it if there is any agency we want copperheads of backup, that would be the irs. >> i agree but i can also testify that this issue of updated technology exists in many agencies across the government. >> so this is a problem we should look at. maybe this committee should something constructive and look at these agencies and see if there is sufficient backup of documentation. as i understand with mr. warfel and when he came to the agency in 2013, he made a decision that would require that there would

be a daily backup of its e-mail server. is that correct? >> i don't know that. >> so you don't know that. >> do you know that, ms. o'connor? >> he did. >> now we can have confidence in knowing that at the end of every day, there is a backup, all e-mails that have transpired during the day are backed up within the irs, is that correct? >> that was my understanding when i was there. >> my only question is -- on the one hand, the commissioner said last night that we have had all these cutbacks and we need more money to be spent to be able to have the kinds of servers necessary to retain all this information. mr. warfel took steps to back up everything. are we at a point where everything is backed up or do we still need more technology?

actually, having a backup system in place is not a record-keeping system and that's part of the discussion about what kinds of technologies do agencies need to have to have effective electronic record-keeping. the actions that have been described the iris has taken me to needs of being able to produce e-mails and other electronic records or inquiries from communities like this one but it does not deal of the electronic record-keeping issues that agencies need to deal with around preservation and access for business needs within agencies necessarily. time hasairman, my expired but i want to point out on behalf of our colleague, ms. malone, that her point was that 4's our tax exempt. not that the donors contributions are tax exempt but that the organizations are tax

exempt for purposes of collection of taxes. >> i appreciate your pointing that out. i received a text from the ways and means who thanked us for helping point that out. one of their frustrations -- the fact is, corporations in america, if they take in, if they provide a computer service and they taken $1 million and spent $1 million doing support them they have nothing left over at the end, they also pay no taxes. in $1c) four who takes million from people who want them to do a service and spends it all pays no taxes. 501(c)3,rences a people may get $1 million and avoid nearly half $1 million in personal taxes. the difference in scrutiny for a 501(c)e activity, and not being

political but political contributions are not tax-deductible, the 501(c)4 follows the same rules as your pac. >> except that my pac has disclosed. who makes to nations to me >> i truly appreciate that. the fact is, congress in his wisdom is not legislated that disclosure. would it not put under the federal election commission. we did not empower that. the president ofa does not have to disclose. that's simply the law as it is. i want to make sure and i think ms. malone was very surprised that people do not get a tax write-off for giving to 501(c)4's therefore the term tax-exempt is not have the meaning most people make it has when they lump together charities, 501(c)3's.

it is extremely important and the american heart association and cancer association cannot engage in 49% of its activities in favor of promoting candidates because it is a charity. there is a huge difference and it's a difference i think ways and means is sensitive to. legislating changes is serious business. just)4's do not enjoy that as your homeowners association does not. >> accept that 501(c)4's are supposed to be exclusively -- >> i appreciate that but the court standing says the majority. i recognize mr. cummings. >> thank you very much. i want to ask the chairman to admit into the record a letter dated june 23, 2014 from the , the counsel to the president. this is a follow-up -- >> this will be placed in the record without objection.

>> this is explaining what ms. o'connor was saying with regard to the witness. herhey refused to provide but she has been informative. it's in the record. the gentleman from texas is recognized. with the gentleman yield me 10 seconds? i want to put this in perspective for mr. webster. if you agree come you can answer on the gentle man's time. if we continue to collect data the way they are describing, what you are doing is effectively taking all the data at the end of six months and throwing it in a trash heap. then the difference if you just collect a bunch of tapes is the equivalent of owning the yard your trash is hauled to and saying it is all there. if i understand correctly, what you're trying to achieve is to have the meaningful data retained so that it is searchable and usable and recognizing the vast majority of

data is likely not to be of any value. you certainly would not want to search through to find the important data effectively being thrown out today. thank you. >> i want to follow-up on some questions -- you said you had gone through extensive training with the irs on their document retention records policy and you felt like your laptop was probably automatically backed up. the actual document retention policy does not have to do with backup or saving files. it has to do with printing out rings that you believe fall under the records act. irs, howenure at the many things did you print out to keep her the archives? but i wanto volume to make sure it was clear what i said.

i went your computer based training and i don't think that much of it was on record retention. >>? did you print out any to say >> absolutely. >> would've been more than one or two per day? >> i don't have a recollection but when i explained is that what happened with my electronic material when i left is that the it people in the chief counsel's office collected that and copied it in my paper records were all transferred so they could continue to be used by my successor. >> when you printed them out, was it an inbox type of thing on your desk? what did you do with them after you printed them out? >> um, i had files in my office. >> was it one big file or broken up under files based on subject matter? do you recall how it was done? >> it was different categories. the'm trying to imagine amount of work necessary to go in and recover something from

ms. lerner and the amount of work that eventually goes in when those documents get to the national archives for sorting them out. >> i don't have a good point of reference. >> let's talk about the records. assuming you've got your capstone project, would you rather have more or less records? >> i would rather have the right records. the workification, that goes on between the records manager and the agency and my records management staff is the creation of schedules. >> but you don't always know what will be an important record at the time you get the e-mail. >if there was an e-mail about a parking place getting assigned, that is doubly not important until, god forbid, an employee comes with a car bomb and parks there. then it becomes relevant. individual at the time it's happening to decide what is a federal record is

probably not a good way to do it. >> i agree and that's why this capstone takes that part of the process and captures everything for the senior executives of the agency. >> what is the cost of implementing it? -- does it plug into the network and capture e-mail? agencies look to employee at capstone solution, they usually do it in the context of upgrading their e-mail system. at the national archives in the past couple of years, we have transitioned e-mail systems and part of what we have done is pulled out the capstone technology implementation along with -- >> it's off-the-shelf of somebody wants it. >> it's not quite that simple. it is products that have to be integrated by the it shop. >> i used to work in it.

isn't as simple as plugging in a server and loading in a software and making sure you have enough storage space? the irs commissioner testified $10 million to put in a solution like that last night. is that accurate? >> i don't know if it's an accurate number or not. as agencies move to the cloud and they are trying to identify solutions that can make caps on work, it is not a free activity. there are costs associated with doing integration. >> certainly saving a digitally is cheaper than printing something out when industry standards that each page you print out cost between 5-8 cents. it has to be a massive savings over that. >> there are probably massive savings with electronic record-keeping and it's easier to provide access electronically than having to provide boxes

and research rooms. >> my time has expired. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay. >> i'm in shock, mr. chairman, but thank you. >> mr. norton, i apologize. they said clay but you have returned and am thrilled to see that elegant from the district of columbia, ms. norton. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i thought you were looking through me. asking about backups here. last member, my andnd from texas, indicated i could not agree more about electronic backup as opposed to paper. of course it costs money for hardware and to get those things. when you already have the old

fashion stuff come you go with the more costly old fashion stuff. that has been the story of the irs and many of our federal agencies. it takes money to do things like that. it takes money to save money. before i go further, we were talking about federal records, not the records the average american would be most concerned about. the federal records they would most be concerned about are there own taxpayer documents. could i ask if there is backup for taxpayer documents when you file your income taxes? mr. webster? >> i don't know the answer to that question. that would have to be brought up with the irs. >> mr. ferrriero? >> batson irs question, i agree. -- that is an iris question, i agree. >> we earlier had an oversight of ibm's role and subcontracts

lio and i was aware that the electronic filing of taxpayer records is far greater and more vast than these e-mails we are discussing and it has a system and a backup and it is a big heart, significant part of the $1.8 billion spent in it. this is the small back of the irs compared to their massive spending on the database. >> mr. chairman, did we discover at that time whether it's backup for the health care data coming into the irs? the witnesses apparently don't have that information. >> my confidence is high that it does exist in that data trove but that came in after our investigation. it is a significant art with hundreds of millions of dollars of the irs new budget going forward with maintenance of those transactions.

is kind of the backend and this does not come up very often but it is important. there has been a lot of back and forth and contentious not testimony, it contention among members -- let me say for the record whenever anybody loses e-mails, there will always be a suspicion. i just want to say that for the record. my concern was that nothing lois lerner did with contemporaneous e-mail -- if you do lose, if you do crash, could i ask both of you, if you crash -- if you are in the old irs because that's where these people are now, what should you do when you know you maybe call before a committee of congress? what should you do when they

tell you they could not retrieve your e-mails? what precautions should you take? >> what we counsel agencies to do is make sure that it, the legal counsel and records management officers are working together on the different aspects of the federal records act to make sure that records are identified and preserved and policies are being followed. of anre were a crash individual's -- >> apparently there have been a great number. >> yes, a crash does not necessarily mean that federal records of them lost but it indicates there are probably issues that need to be addressed with the it organization and the records organization. >> i'm assuming these records have been lost and that is catastrophic. somebody will be accused as has occurred here because there is hardly any way to prove that negative.

i want to know what percussions should be taken. crash andyou it's a records have been lost, what should be done? again have the situation and now we know that suspicion will come up. i don't regard the suspicion is unfounded. i just think the suspicion is to be shown. i need to know what you should do -- i don't see any way we can avoid this happening again until we get new software and computers. >> the first step is to notify the national archives that there is a problem so we can start the process. >> do you know whether this was done this case? >> it was not done. >> that's the first thing, notify the national archives even before you try to retrieve it. just say we have lost something and wanted to know it. go ahead -- >> when we found out, we write a letter to the records manager.

>> when did you find out in this case? >> we found out when you did. it was the letter to senators biden and hatch. we submitted our letter -- >> what is the point of notifying, his adjuster credibility sake? >> we are demanding they investigate and report back to us within 30 days with the situation is. >> of course they are already doing that. it must be for more than that. there were not just sitting there. >> this is the first indication we had that there was a problem. we snap into action when we are notified. >> but you're convinced they were trying to do that. >> what was going on at that time, it was clear that timothy was going on. what was not clear to me until that letter appeared is that there were e-mails that potentially were not able to be reproduced and were lost. that is the difference for us. there is a lot of dividends that go on in the government every

day to recover crashed hard drives or other kinds of it issues. it becomes a serious concern of ours when it becomes increasingly clear that records may have been lost. that's when we get into action. whether it is clear or not clear, it cannot be increasingly clear. someone has to look. it may take some time. search, then that you can conclude it is lost or not lost. i want to make a couple of points related to this -- agency individual in an should be working with the records office to make sure they are managing the records within the official record-keeping system, i am not familiar with too many official record-keeping systems that entail saving records on a hard drive to maintain them.

you would do that for access purposes or reference purposes but not as an official record-keeping system. part of what we would counsel agencies to do is be in contact with the records office or the in contact with your it staff and her counsel so when these issues happen, you can figure out what needs to be done from a federal records act perspective. going forward with the directive and having agencies managed e-mail by the end of 2016 and pursuing capstone and other policy ideas we have promulgated with the directive, we anticipate a day where we will in -- be able to remove human intervention from this activity and be able to manage these records more effectively. >> thank you. we now go to the gentleman from north carolina. i would ask for 10 seconds -- mr. webster, would it be fair to say that when you should have been informed, if lois lerner no there could be federal records

on the luster of, it would've been at the point she discovered her drug was broken and/or at the point they were convinced that could not recover it. within it have come to the national archives just wouldn't wouldn't it have come to the national archives? >> it would have been preferred for us to know about this when there was an issue that would have indicated e-mail was lost. of otherare hundreds places where she could have helped you to look for these in real-time rather than years later. it's more of an operational issue within the irs. >> a prompt reporting to makes a difference? >> yes, because that allows the agency itself to be unnoticed to itself that they need to take action. may i ask unanimous consent

-- >> without objection. >> i thank the gentleman from utah and thank you ms. o'connor. it's good to have you back and good to see you again. in your testimony, you talked about when you got to the irs in may of 2013, that all of lois thisr's e-mails were in area to be redacted and worked on, is that correct? >> it was still in the processing part where they were being decrypted but they had been gathered. anybody who not looked and saw this huge hole between 2009-2011? it strains the e-mail activity during this period, a lot of it disappeared. is there anybody who looked at like treasury would look at a

counterfeit dollar and say -- this is a fake. did anybody raise that concern? >> it was not brought to my attention. would you be mad about that since you are overseeing that? somebody had seen it come i would've hoped it would have been brought to my attention. >> you think somebody did not see it. >> i have no reason to think anybody saw it. >> and i asked the witness to please speak into the microphone? ms. o'connor? >> can you move it closer? >> who is responsible for making sure that all the documents, materials are complete to submit to this committee or any other committee, who is responsible to make sure that body of work is complete? >> i think it doubled it ahead of whichever agency has been asked. >> so we just trust them to make sure it's complete so if there

is no real oversight within the irs to make sure what we get is complete. irs, we had a whole number of different layers of quality checking to make sure that the materials that were being reviewed were appropriately redacted and then produced. >> all those layers, there was really no buddy they're saying that we got everything we need. think ising that i challenging about the situation is that i believe the people who collected all of ms. lerner's material most likely believed they had it all because they had successfully what was on her hard drive. the missing pieces not knowing there had been a crash. 2009,n they went back to they did not see there was a big hole were the e-mail volume picked up in june of 2011? they would not have seen this

unbelievable anomaly of additional e-mails? >> nobody brought to my attention. >> here is the bombshell in all of this -- every one of us has been counting on the report for chronological of who knows what when. reportedof what they was solely based on e-mails. if we have a whole lot of e-mails that are missing, wouldn't that suggest that the whole time frame is at best incomplete? >> one of the things that is important is that my understanding is what the irs has done is provided all the e-mails -- >> but that's after the report. during the report, what they reported -- this is new since , that atould you agree best it is incomplete, yes or no? you are a smart person and i

have done with you before, yes or no, wouldn't you agree it would be incomplete? >>. i cannot answer the reason why is my understanding of the report said it was based on interviews -- >> it was based on 30% interviews, 65% -- i have read the report. . it has put me to sleep a number of times if most of it is based on e-mail, wouldn't you say that if you did not have all the e-mails that the tigda report might not be the full story? it's a real easy answer. >> if there was relevant e-mail that's missing then that would be true. >> we know there are thousands of e-mails they never got to see from lois lerner and perhaps several others. >> on not sure we know that. let me go to my good friend with the national archives. i say that sincerely. now that we found last night

that not only is it lois lerner's hard drive but it's a number of other people at the irs, do they call you on a regular basis and say we may have this problem? have you gotten a number of notifications from those higher officials that have had hard drive issues? >> not to date. >> neither of you? >> no. that we have a federal law is being ignored by the irs. i will yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay. >> let me provide a recent history lesson to my colleagues. during the administration of president bush, government officials lost millions of e-mails including significant numbers of white house e-mails in the midst of congressional and criminal investigations. in one instance, the bush

administration lost nearly 5 million e-mails related to various white house matters under investigation by congress. at the time, white house spokesman stated " we screwed up and we are trying to fix it." ferrierro, your predecessor mr. weinstein wrote to the white house counsel and said this --" it is essential the white house move with the utmost dispatch both in assessing any problems that may exist with reserving e-mails and in taking whatever action may be necessary to restore any missing e-mails." those bush era documents were also open to criminal and congress and all investigation. the special prosecutor hit a roadblock when e-mails related to the valeriplame leak

investigation went missing. theaid " not all e-mails of office of the vice president and executive office of the president for certain time periods were preserved through the normal archiving process on the white house computer system." in 2009, the justice of -- the justice department investigated torture memo the one key bush administration official's relevant e-mail had been deleted and reportedly was not recoverable. i-8know that you are not the a kite in the previous administration but you must agree that the iris is not the only agency to have lost e-mails related to congressional investigations, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> i assume you also agree that the federal government has had significant and long-standing challenges with records

retention, especially that of e-mails. >> from the very beginning of the government. >and using paper. this is not just an e-mail problem. this is a records management problem. >> according to the general counsel of the archives at the bush the request of the white house went largely ignored. what a few years changes things. the general counsel reported that the national archives new " virtually nothing about the status of the alleged missing white house e-mails/" , can you discuss the policy changes president obama has made to improve record retention throughout the federal government? >> is i just grabbed earlier, he has issued a memorandum on a

records manager, the first time since the truman administration that the white house is gotten involved and recognized an issue around records management and authorize the creation of a directive by the office of management and budget and myself and went to all the agencies aligning what we need to do to get our act together as well as a set of ramos is about how the archives will support that work. creating more tools and the credibility and visibility around records management. professionalizing records management across the government , doing a better job of training every member of the federal government in terms of records responsibilities. . there has been a huge focus on record management >> so you have seen a change in how it managers at the different

agencies archive? >> there has been a great deal of interest, support, and collaboration for the first time that i can see between the records management entity and the cio community and the federal government. >> do you believe that president obama has made retention of these records a priority of his administration? >> the administration certainly understands the problem and is tohorized direction for us implement new ways of solving this problem. >> thank you. >> would my friend yield for a question? >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i would ask for leeway given that the chair of the full committee has many times been granted -- extra time throughout the session. i simply have a question if the chair would allow it. >> please proceed. >> i thank you.

many of theue that 5 million e-mails that were lost were in fact deleted? it was not because of crash computers, they were actually deleted. >> intentionally deleted in order to hide whatever it is they did not want the public to see. >> i thank my friend. it was out of the vice president's office of all places. >> i thank the chair. >> i know recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman and that thereolleagues were people investigated and convicted as a result of that matter. we have gone a long way in this without getting close to that particular issue. o'connor, i have great respect for your history as an attorney and you yourself have identified that you managed complication matters before you came here.

i am asking for some of your insight even though this may have been prior to your actual involvement. -- early in june, 2011, june 3, ways and means chairman dave camp settable at her to doug shulman, the commissioner in which he identified alleged discriminatory practices on the part of the irs very specifically. perspective, when somebody alleges discrimination, do you think there is ever a chance that matter gets to litigation? >> allegations of discrimination sometimes do get to litigation. >> they do sometimes get there. can i stay to the witness? >> please big into the microphone. >> around 2011, very similar to

the same time, there had only responsiveages of original when these request had come in, only 2000 pages but hundreds of those 2000 pages that came from the irs were materials and e-mails that were purportedly showing that the efforts were being directed not just to conservative organizations that two liberal organizations as well. in my mind, we have a very responsive body on the part of parsing the materials being returned in response to ways and means subpoenas. knowing there are discriminatory allegations and knowing that the irs and those advising the irs

are using great degrees of discretion in the form of the materials they are returning, how do you comport with a responsibility under the law of e-mails which may be subject to electronic discovery? this is not ambiguous. certain electronic records may need to be identified and preserved when litigation is anticipated. why was there not an effort undertaken on the part of people to preserve those records as far back as 2011? which records in particular? >> the records that lois lerner -- she was advised in january of 2011, very specifically, but her communications were potentially the subject of discriminatory practices. there iswn admission,

a recognition that those e-mails may be subject to litigation by the requirements in preparation for litigation. as an attorney, used to receive those. you are required to maintain those. why weren't those e-mails retained in 2011 when she had noticed she was potentially subject to his discriminatory practices? >>. i don't know, i wasn't at the agency then >> i have a question about that and that's one of the problems. it appears that that also happens to be just the same timeframe, just the same timeframe, within weeks, in june, 2011, that seven people from irs had their computers crash. pardon me for being suspicious about the timing. in terms of response -- >> the house is about to come back and you can watch this

hearing any time on www.c-span.org. members will finish work on a bill continuing the commodity futures trading commission through 2018 and that changes the dodd frank law regulation of derivatives trading. the house is live on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our chaplain, father conroy. give you nroy: we thanks for giving us another day. we pause in your presence and ask guidance for the men and

women of the people's house. on a day when voters in many states participate in congressional primaries, may your spirit of wisdom be manifest among those who exercise their rights, rights for which so many struggled 50 years ago to secure for all american citizens. here in washington, may all members realize that your congregation is wider and broader ever we could measure or determine. help them and help us, o lord, to put away any judgments that belong to you and do what we can to live together in peace. bless us this day and every day and may all that is done within the people's house be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his pproval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved.

the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen. ms. ros-lehtinen: please rise and join us in our nation's pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. andrew tomarici is a 25-year-old united states marine from south florida who served our country -- our country bravely and honorably during two combat tours in afghanistan. andrew was meritoriously promoted on the battlefield to sergeant during his last tour which shows the true character of this young man who once told his mom that he was, quote,

nudged by god, end quote, to join the military. andrew suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder and was invited by a fellow marine to seek treatment in san diego. he accidentally ended up at the mexican border where he was arrested by mexican authorities for possessing firearms. andrew's mistake was taking a wrong turn. the administration's mistake is to let him languish in mexican prisons where he face threats and abuses. president obama and vice president biden both had opportunities to demand his release, but they shirked their responsibilities and obligations to this young man and his family. mr. speaker, it's time to bring our marine home now. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, i rise

today to recognize the month of june as immigrant heritage month. this month i join my colleague, representative sanchez, as an original co-sponsor recognizing the month of june as immigrant heritage month in honor of the role immigrants played in helping shape the culture and history of the united states. no country has been more vig rant of immigrant ideas than our country, america. i believe the only true way to honor the immigrants that built the foundation of this great nation is by fixing our broken immigration system. but house republicans have refused to pass immigration reform bill. to mark immigration heritage month, we must create a message of unity and remember this country was also built by the dreams and hard work of people who came from someplace else. perhaps then we can change the dialogue around immigration by placing attention on the

country's diverse heritage and the need to bring immigration reform to the floor for a vote. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, the post courier of charleston, south carolina, had an editorial last tuesday correctly revealing the wrong immigration reform. the mass entry of children has another political obstacle toward passing compre hence of immigration reform legislation. opponents of the initiative recently point out that this is the latest border problem as additional evidence of the obama administration lack of credibility on the issue. numerous republican lawmakers have cited as the motivating factor of this incoming tide of humanity, president barack

obama's executive edict, deferring deportation, and their continuing migration into our country strengthens the assumption the president has no intention of fulfilling its pledge to bolster border security. clearly, if the president and other advocates of sweeping immigration reform are serious of pushing through congress, border enforcement must be intensified. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise to recognize june as alzheimer's and brain awareness month. mr. higgins: worldwide, at least 44 million people are living with alzheimer's disease. the numbers are expected to rise to 76 million by 2030. in the united states, five million americans are living with alzheimer's. and those who are affected by

this disease know the costs are high. the disease affects or hits both the afflicted and those who love the afflicted. it's a disease whose originalins are unknown but whose ends are absolutely certain. it's a disease that takes your mind, dignity and ultimately life. alzheimer's is the sixth leading cause of death in the united states and is the most expensive disease. costing our nation $214 billion in 2014 alone. mr. speaker, i call on my colleagues to take action on finding a cure for this fatal disease by supporting the hope for alzheimer's act to improve diagnosis and treatment of alzheimer's and to commit to making a strong investment in funding research to find a cure. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, 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 from california is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, on saturday, i had a chance to join with a general in presenting the memorial wreath at the korean war memorial lunch held in california. it was an honor to be in the company with such a courageous group of men who fought hard for the freedoms of south korea enjoy today. the luncheon served as a solemn reminder of the sacrifices made on our behalf and our commitment to our veterans. that commitment wasn't better than my friend who is a korean immigrant. from the first time he learned about issues with the v.a. until today, the vigilance of my office, myself and many of my colleagues in the house, and that commitment will remain to get to the bottom to, to get to the solutions -- bottom, to get to the solutions of the backlog and the backlog of even having

their cases heard and the benefits. so much -- many questions still remain. i look forward to meeting with the new director of the oakland regional office there pretty soon and getting to the bottom of real solutions of our veterans. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. chu: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. chu: it's being almost one year since 2/3 of the senate, democrats and republicans, voted for comprehensive immigration reform. house republicans have had one year to address the 4.3 million families languishing in the immigration backlog, separated from their loved ones for decades. one year to bring the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are already in the fabric of our society out of the shadows so they can earn their place in society. and one year to allow the brightest minds in the world to graduate from our schools and

contribute to the economy. they've had one year to reduce the deficit by nearly $1 trillion as this bill will do. they promise the american people reform. all we've heard are excuses for the delays. that's why i helped to introduce h.r. 15, a bipartisan immigration bill. this bill has the votes to pass today. i urge republican leadership to put politics aside and bring this bill to the floor. it's time to fix our broken immigration system once and for all. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. johnson: 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. you know, the surge of illegal immigration on the southern border of texas is one of the largest security and social issues facing our nation today. thousands of illegals crossing

into the united states directly impact our schools, our hospitals, government budgets, employment, crime and all parts of american life. sadly, this surge is no coincidence. instead, it is a direct response to president obama's failed policies. news reports stated, white house officials acknowledge some of the thousands of children seeking refuge are coming in part because they think they will be allowed to stay in the united states because of president obama's policies. this is totally unacceptable. we are a nation of laws. the president has a duty to fully enforce our laws and protect our borders. texans and all americans want, need and deserve a secure border, period. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? without objection, the

gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. gabbard: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to honor and recognize staff sergeant himada. a world war ii veteran born in hawaii who served under the office of strategic services, a precursor to the c.i.a. he volunteered for the 442nd regiment team in 1943, shipped off to fierce om battlefields of the burma, india, china theater and parachuted into what is now beijing to rescue 600 prisoners of war. throughout his military career, he stayed through to the aloha spirit, his love of our country and determination to do whatever it took to accomplish the mission are an inspiration for those who raised the hand to wear the uniform and serve. he passed away on may 27 at the age of 92, leaving behind a legacy of courage and servant leadership. he'll be interred later today

at the national memorial pacific theater and we send to him our deepest condolences and say aloha to hawaii's hero. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. brooks: 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 gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. black: mr. speaker, on may 22, president obama gave a speech in el paso, texas, where he effectively said, mission, accomplished, our border is secure. in fact, he mocked those of us who disagreed with him, suggesting that we wouldn't be appy until there was someone guarding our southern border. mr. speaker, as we witnessed tens of thousands of children crossing our border today, i hope the president remembers his speech in el paso and owns

up to his administration's failure in enforcing our immigration policy. we need a secure border before we can address any kind of immigration reform, which is why i'm a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 2220, the border -- the smart border protection act. tough, smart legislation to finally get operational control over our nation's borders. thank you and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut 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. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, last december in stafford springs, connecticut, warren mill, a textile mill that had been in operation for 161 years, sadly closed its doors and laid off its workers. it was a day where many were sort of writing obituaries for the textile industry in new england, but for many the memory and the reputation of the high quality of that factory lived on.

fast forward to this past wednesday, a new owner, american woen, will reopen the plant, the looms will be humming by the end of the month, hiring back the workers whose quality workmanship, again, resurrected this industry for new england. again, it was because of the combined effort of my office, which worked with the parties to bring them together, the governor, who provided some low interest financing to help the transaction move forward so that then it all came together so that, again, by the end of june 80 workers will be back at the looms producing wool and delivering it with a made in america stamp which is not just a dream, it is a reality. it is good business practice for people to invest in america's workers. congratulations to the workers of warren mill in stafford springs, connecticut, for setting an example of how we as a nation can lead again in manufacturing. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: i rise today celebrate the 70th anniversary of the original g.i. bill, also known as the serviceman's readjustment act of 1934. this legislation has had an enormous impact on veterans, creating access to low cost home loans an educational and vocational training. the g.i. bill came into being in the height of world war ii when america was mobilized into war around the globe. these veterans returned from war and utilized access to education and training and began building an america that would lead the world economically and militarily for generations to come. since then, veterans from other conflicts, including vietnam, korea and others have used the bill. recently it was amended to aa new generation of veterans to

gain ben -- to allow a new generation of veterans to gain benefits. mr. speaker, our veterans have paid a high price to earn these benefits and they deserve as much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee 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. mr. cohen: i rise to honor the life of an outstanding guitarist, song writer, singer, maven hodges, better known as teeny hodges, who passed away in dallas yesterday. teeny started playing the guitar at age 12, he and his brother were part of the rural studios and record studio that produced al green and other a great part of the memphis sound in the 1970's.

under willie mitchell, a great producer. willie mitchell adopted teeny and taught him about playing the guitar. willie's grandson now runs the studio, teeny has been a part of it and the heart of the high rhythm section, withle with -- well known throughout the whomplede co-wrote with al green "love and 457 byness" and "take me to the riffer" and other tunes. he played through the spring, he was ill from emphysema, which he'd had for year, but it got so bad he had to be take to the hospital in dallas. he passed away from emfiseemasm he was a wonderful spirit and great talent. all of memphis will miss imhim -- miss him and all of us appreciate his contribution to his -- to our culture. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute

and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is ecognized. remarks to to add my my colleague from tennessee. a judge nt to remember who made our country great as a test optometrist his character. mr. roe: junge wilson was born and raised in east -- judge wilson was born and raised in east tennessee. he was born and raised in johnson city, tennessee and graduated law school at the university of tennessee at knoxville. since his graduation from law school, judge wilson served in the united states air force as an assistant district attorney and most -- in the united states air force, as an assistant district attorney, and as a circuit court judge for 35 years, representing several counties. judge wilson would be the first to say he couldn't have done it

without his lovely wife nancy, who has been by his side for 48 years. i'm proud to call both of them my friends. i thank judge wilson to for his service to our community, our state, and our nation and wish him the best in his well deserve red tirmente. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to recognize the outstanding environmental research being conducted at the university of california-merced. in the midst of the worst drought in california's history, scientists at u.c.-merced are studying the effect those drought are having on water and soil resources. one researchers and her students are investigating the impact of fire, erosion and climate changed on soil processes.

mr. mcnerney: extreme drought and other catastrophic events can alter the carbon content of the soil, its water holding capacity and leads to high rates of runoff. research such as this is critical for addressing challenges to the soil -- soil's ability to sequester at moss feerick carbon, to water security, and to the health of the eco. is continued federal support of science and reserge is needed to provide better information for formulating solutions to the challenges in the world around us. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: we are experiencing an unprecedented cry soins the texas border. this is not the result of a natural disaster, it's an

entirely man-made cause, caused by the executive branch. the number of young undocumented immigrants has nearly tripled over the last two years. this is not a coincidence. two years ago, the president essentially rewrote the nation's immigration policy and promised amnesty to children of a certain age. central americans have heard this message loud and clear and seventh their children to the united states, often under the care of drug lords who are abusive and dangerous. i visit ed lackland air force base and heard the stories firsthand of the horrors these children experience. mr. speaker, when you're complicit in this degree of human trafficking, i would call you an enabler. i urge the president to reverse his course for the sake of these innocent children, for the sake of our hardworking border agents and for the taxpayers. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expire. 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. >> i rise to congratulate and honor the sailors of the u.s.s. pennsylvania gold crew for completing a 140-day patrol, the longest strategic deterrence patrol ever in an ohio-class submarine and the longest of any kind since the 1970's. the service members of the pennsylvania ought to be proud of their accomplishments. mr. kilmer: they have done an outstanding job of -- job as sailors and we must also pay tribute to the family members who went without their loved ones for more than a third of a year. president kennedy once said, control of the seas means security. control of the seas means peace. and control of the seas means victory. the pacific northwest is proud, this country is proud thombing

accomplishments and sacrifices of our sailors and their families. we are thankful for what you do for our nation. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. on sunday, i had the opportunity to speak at cornerstone church in salisbury, north carolina. the service was a tribute to america, our military, and our veterans and it was an uplifting experience. cornerstone was founded over 20 years ago, the first various had 12 attendees, five of whom were related to the founding pastor, bill goodare. he continues as the lead pastor and seeks to use the ministry to attack racism and poverty. the church is growing and serves the people of salisbury without regard to age, race, or

political affiliation. mr. speaker, it was refreshing to join the congregation at cornerstone and pay tribute to our country, men and women who serve or have served in our armed forces. as the striptures tell us in john 15:13, greater love has no one than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute, without objection. ms. jackson lee: as the founder and co-chair of the congressional children's caucus, i rise to talk about children. the children in america who need more head start seats, or the children in northern nigeria being attacked and stolen away by boko haram, who stole some 30 or 40 girls and some 31 boys.

then i rise to talk about the children who are at america's border. through no fault of their own and through no fault of this administration. a baby, or children laying on the floor with a blanket, and some have taken to the political grandstanding of blaming the president and the president's administration. the united nations has indicated that this is a proportion of international humanitarian crisis. 5 % of the children that were -- 58% of the children that were questioned were not here for immigration issues, they are displaced internationally, they were forcibly displaced. so it is our job to address this question. we should address this question with humanitarian response, with more processing centers, we should have more ded tension centers that -- more detention centers there for families and children to be processed appropriately. more immigration judges. we must deal with more children's organizations like missing and exploited children, the children's legal defense

fund, let us not grandstand on these babies. they are here because they've been forced to leave a devastating condition in their country. attacking the administration is wrong. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada 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. the senate is once again poised o act on -- mr. horseford: the senate is -- -- senate is oncehe again poised to act on unemployment insurance for those who need a financial lifeline. the last time the senate sent a bill to the house to help struggling americans with unemployment insurance, speaker boehner and the party of no let

the bill expire. by the end of this month, there will be 33,800 nevadans cut off from unemployment insurance and another 3.1 million americans asking why congress has turned its back on them. is it any wonder that congress is held in such low regard by the hardworking american people? the speaker's answer to millions of americans asking for help is deafening silence with no plan to do anything. i did not come to congress to sit and wait for one person, the speaker, to decide whether or not this body could act. i urge the speaker to bring up the senate-passed unemployment insurance extension to help 3.1 million americans who need a ifeline. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call

up house resolution 636 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 115, house resolution 636, resolved that at any time after adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, purr sune to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for r. ideration of the bill h. 36, for export of natural gas to world trade organization countries and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waive. general debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on commerce. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. in lue of the amendment in the nature of a -- in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as a bill an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the toveks rule committees print 113-48. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules acompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the

house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill, or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 3301, to require approval for the construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of oil or natural gas pipelines or

electric transmission facilities at the national boundary of the united states for the import or export of oil, natural gas, or electricity to or from canada or mexico, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five minute -- five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-49. that amendment in the nature of

a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the

committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or ithout instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, house resolution 636 provides for the consideration of two energy bills designed to provide certainty for those american businesses that have been given excuse after excuse as to why

their permit applications have been delayed by the president and delayed by the department of energy and other federal agencies. the president and his administration have used every delaying tactic they can think of to put off approval of job-creating projects in the natural gas and oil sectors. quite frankly, the american people are fed up with it. republicans are here today to stand up for citizens, for unions, for businesses that have stood up and called for a more, at the dishes process that removes -- expeditious process that removes politics from the approval process. h.r. 6, the domestic prosperity and global freedom act, and h.r. 3301, the north american energy infrastructure act, both bills receive a standard structured rule under this rule. for h.r. 6, the rules committee makes in order four amendments, two from democratic sponsors

and two bipartisan members. -- two bipartisan amendments. for h.r. 3301, the rule makes in order three amendments, all sponsored by democrats. this is a straightforward and fair rule that will allow the house to fully debate the issues of liquefied natural gas exports and cross-border pipeline and transmission line projects. house republicans have been focused on this country's energy independence for years. the energy and commerce committee has been out in front on this effort, holding hearings on the obama administration's harmful policies, holding hearings on the job-killing regulations and those that place restrictions of development on public lands and thereby producing electricity and fuel. although president obama is the to get credit for increase in energy in recent years, any observer knows that any increase in energy has come

as a result of private, not public lands, and certainly not lands controlled by the federal government. in continuing the republican majority's focus on domestic production issues, utilizing the resources we have in north america, represent to have cory gardner introduced h.r. 6, the bipartisan domestic prosperity and global freedom act, to provide for the expedited approval of exploration of natural gas to world trade organization countries. i am an original co-sponsor of the legislation. in the energy and commerce committee, we've had hearings about the gridlock which has held up dozens of applications from domestic production companies looking to export liquefied natural gas. since the first nonfree trade agreement application was submitted to the department of energy nearly four years ago, seven have been approved. 24 are awaiting action. interestingly enough, to counter what the department of

energy knew would be the inevitable bipartisan criticism of its delays, at the last hearing we held on this topic, the department of energy announced just days before the hearing the approval of another l.n.g. export application. for anyone who thinks this activity in the house is few tile, given harry reid's intrang jens of taking up legislation that comes from the house, this action by the department of energy highlights that efforts taken in this house goes beyond, sending a clear signal to the obama administration that the people's house is fed up with the delaying tactics and the refusal to move forward with the approval of legitimate permit applications is key to making progress toward a more robust domestic energy sector. the delays which president obama's administration have imposed on these applications make is more and more

difficult, applications collecting dust, and these companies are looking to secure finance and they'll soon lose patience and look elsewhere for their needs. the window of opportunity is closing and it's the president's hand who is pushing it down. mr. gardner's legislation is straightforward. indeed, a two-page bill with a clear purpose and intent. the legislation exat the indicts the decision make -- exat the indicts the decisionmaking process for -- expedites the decisionmaking process for the department of energy to issue a decision within a finite number of days. that's right. this legislation does not force department of energy to make a decision or make a decision a certain way. it simply says make a decision. moreover, an increase in leck which find natural gas ex-- liquefied natural gas exports in the united states can have major positive ramifications on

international relations. i saw firsthand how russia's cruel restrictions on natural gas are affecting the region's social and political atmosphere. officials from the ukraine and other eastern european countries have told members of the energy and commerce committee that the mere mention that the united states is increasing its l.n.g. exports can have dramatic impacts on russia's influence over the region. this bill, mr. gardner's bill, achieves that goal. the passage of this bill will move the united states yet another step closer to both assisting our allies abroad as well as creating a more robust domestic industry at home. the second bill included in today's rule, h.r. 3301, the north american energy infrastructure act, authored by chairman upton of the energy and commerce committee, further improves the laws governing the permitting of oil and gas

pipelines which cross the united states border between either mexico or canada. the country has witnessed over the past few years, despite overwhelming support from the american people for the project, that president obama and his secretary of state, first hillary clinton and now john kerry, have refused to approve the keystone pipeline to bring oil from canada to the gulf of mexico. those of us who have followed this process over the many years that this administration has had the keystone application under its review know that the delays which the president has imposed on this approval process have been done purely for political considerations. in the process, they have harmed the country's relationships with one of our closest allies, our neighbor to the north. if the goal of the president -- if the goal of the president's delays, which he's clearly

doing for his friends in the environmental lobby and certainly not for the many unions who have loudly called for the project's approval, if the goal was to stop development of the oil sands in canada, the president, again, has failed. canada recently approved the exploration of a new pipeline to its western coast where oil would be transported and exported to asia. republicans on the energy and commerce committee have been highlighting this possibility for years, and apparently our predictions are about to come true. but h.r. 3301 is about more than simply the keystone pipeline. this legislation is about preventing the president and future presidents, regardless of their party, from playing politics with decisions that should be made on the merits of the project. this president has repeatedly ignored the state department's comprehensive environmental review of the application, which found that minimal

adverse impacts would occur from the building and operation of a cross-country pipeline and has instead decided to base the decision purely on those special interests. this is not how major national projects should be evaluated in this country, and chairman upton's legislation ensures that future decisions will be done without the shadow of politics looming over them. however, although the legislation removes the politics out of such decisionmaking, it still ensures that other key safeguards in the approval process remain in place. cross-border pipelines would still have to meet the natural gas act's requirements as they would still comply with all relevant federal, state and local environmental law. the department of commerce and the federal energy regulatory commission both will play roles in this process as well as the department of energy.

and decisions must be made within a 120-daytime frame to prevent the types of delaying tactics -- day time frame to prevent the types of delaying tactics we've seen with regard to these projects. and this is projects that cross national borders and does not make changes to the application of inter and intrastate projects. mr. speaker, these bills are commonsense responses when the president decides to play politics with the domestic energy industry. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and the underlying bills and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from texas, dr. burgess, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and i yield myself such

time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying bills. first of all, this rule is not open and denies some important and germane amendments. this is consistent with the increasingly closed-mind set of this republican leadership. mr. speaker, i want to remind my colleagues this is now the most closed congress in history. 62 closed rules in this congress alone. that's a title i don't think either party would enjoy having, but this is the most closed congress in history. speaker boehner, his opening speech, said that openness would be the new standard. i guess he misspoke because that is not what is happening on this bill -- on these bills and it hasn't been happening on most other important pieces of legislation.

the approval rating of congress from a poll gallup did last week is at 7%. think friends can't blame that on president obama, kay can't blame that on someone else, they're running the show here in the house. this is a reflection on the work or lack of work that is being done here. i think the american people want a -- want a full and open debate on important issues. i think the american people want taos focus on things that will actually make their lives better and have a chance of becoming law. you know, we have millions of our fellow citizens that are unemployed and we can't even get the republican leadership to bring an extension of unemployment insurance to the house floor far vote. we can't even get it on the floor for a vote. we're trying to raise the minimum wage so that we're not subsidizing mcdonald's or wendy's who pay their workers their wage to give

workers. can't have a vote on it, they're blocking it. we need an immigration -- we need to fix our immigration system, it's broken. an immigration reform bill that passed in the united states senate in a bipartisan way, you you know. and it solves many of the problems that some of my friends on the other side are complaining about. but the leadership of this house won't even let us bring a bipartisan immigration reform bill to the house floor so that we can vote on it. so it's no wonder why, under this republican leadership, that the approval rating of this body is 7%. i think that's history in and of itself. i don't know when there was a congress in the history of this country that had such a low rating. then here we are with this legislation. h.r. 6. the amazingly named domestic prosperity and global freedom act. would improve neither our domestic prosperity nor global freedom. instead it would undermine the

department of energy's approval process for the export of licky fied natural gas. the current process allows d.o.e. to evaluate the impacts domestic exports on natural gas prices, as well as environmental impacts. this bill is a solution in search of a problem, mr. speaker. the department of energy is already aggressive approving l.n.g. exports. the amounts already aproved for export would transform the united states into the world's second largest exporters of l.n.g. further, under the bill, l.n.g. wouldn't be exported any faster. i urge my colleagues not to be fooled by the rhetoric you may here on the -- hear on the floor today. passing this bill won't magically solve the natural gas problem in the ukraine or other parts of the world. e other bill, h.r. 3301, the north american energy infrastructure act would

dramatically weaken the review process for transborder pipeline and electric transmission projects. this bill, which is a blatantly transparent effort to rig the game in favor of the keystone pipeline project would prevent the government from reviewing a project's full impacts including oil spills and the consequences for landowners, public safety, drinking water, wildlife and yes, mr. speaker, climate change. let me say those two wrds again because i know that many of -- those two words again because i know many of my colleagues tend to stick their heads in the sand when they hear them, climate change. i think it's important to say a few things. we know that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. we know carbon dioxide traps heat. we know the level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are higher than they've been in 8,000 years.

we know nine of the warmest years since 1880 have been in the last decade. we know that last month was the warmest month of may ever recorded. but to hear some of my republican friends, we should just move along. nothing see here. nothing to worry about. no need to worry that the arctic ice sheets are melting, leading to rapidly rising sea levels. no need to worry about more severe and deadly weather events. no need to worry about impacts to energy prucks. at best you'll hear them say the science is still unsettled. it isn't. it isn't. climate change is real, it is happening and we need to figure out what we should do about it. sometimes they will say, well, i'm not a scientist, i can't comment about it. mr. speaker, i'm not a scientist either but i know that if i drop my pen it will fall to the floor pause of gravity. -- because of gravity. most of here in congress are not scientist bus the overwhelming majority of the best and

brightest scientific minds in the world have concluded that climate change is real. it is happening. and humankind is currently making the problem worse system of it would be nice, given the enorm i have to this problem, if my republican friends would work with democrats and work with the white house to try to fashion a response. instead, they deny that it's a problem and we get more of the same old, same old. and i regret that very, very much. but you know, i can't quite understand, mr. speaker, why my republican friends continue to ignore this critically important issue. i hope it isn't because of their borderline pathological hatred of president obama. i hope it's not because of the big oil special interests and the millions and millions of dollars that pour into republican campaigns. whatever the reason, i hope that future generations will forgive them because this is something that we should have been addressing years and years and

years ago. and the continued blocking of any serious attempts to deal with climate change by the majority in this house, i think, is unconscionable. so having said that, mr. speaker, you know, you vote against the rule because it's not an open rule and a lot of good, germane amendments, they were germane, were not made ined offer. i'm glad one of the authors of the bill got his amendment made in order but, you know he, authored the bill, i guess he gets special preference. but there's no reason why all the amendments couldn't have been made in order. we're not really doing much this week and this legislation we're dealing with here today is -- my guess is it ain't going anywhere. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is ecognized. mr. burgess: i yield myself one

minute for a response. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. voted gess: this country for loan guarantees for ukraine. less than 24 hours after this house passed that loan guarantee, putin said, your natural gas price just doubled and next year it's going to cost you an extra $1 billion system of in effect, he used natural gas pricing policy to offset the loan guarantees we had provided to the country of ukraine to deal with their internal problems. mr. speaker, this is something this congress can adjust and affect right now. we can remove the stranglehold that putin holds over ukraine and indeed the entirety of eastern europe and we can do it by the passage of this bill today. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield three

minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague for yielding me time. i rise on the rule for both h.r. 6 and 3301, i'll address each of those bills. i'm an original co-sponsor of h.r. 301 and a recent co-sponsor on h.r. 6 after we amended it out of committee. h.r. 3301 would create a north american energy market with our free trading partners canada and mexico. if we want to create this market, we need to have statutory authority. it's true that the president rble -- presidential permitting process dates back for several generations but to create this market we need certainty. that's why it should be in statute. past administrations were forced to use executive orders when congress has failed to act. congress has a duty to regulate the commerce of the united states and a cross border energy infrastructure project falls

well within that space. unfortunately, cross border decisions have fallen victim to election cycles and political considerations. h.r. 3301 will resolve these issues as proposed by amendments debated here today. let me say, i wish we had an open rule. some of the amendments considered by the rules committee i would have liked to have voted for. but let's don't take that away from the quality of these two pieces of legislation. h.r. 3301 provides for an environmental review of cross border segment of the pipeline. the entire length of the pipeline is reviewed for environmental impacts under existing law. any time a pipeline crosses a federal lands, waters, endangered habitats, national environmental policy act, known as nepa review, must be completed by the federal government. otherwise environmental permit must come from the state environmental agency, if it's within the state. there are more than 40,000 miles of pipeline in the u.s. that have been constructed with in death 1r50eur789 -- in depth

environmental reviews. 3301 doesn't take anything away exempt the state department only has to deal with their responsibility coming from can dark the united states -- canada to the united states or mexico to the united states or vice versa. there will be environmental reviews by federal and state agencies. this will continue to be the case. also this bill doesn't deal with the keystone x.l. pending applications for permits are grandfathered in the current process. may i have some extra time? mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman one minute. mr. green bay: pending applications are fail safe and pushed through the effective date through july 1, 2016 this legislation isn't about keystone, no badly how badly d -- no matter how badly opponents want to make it. let me talk about h.r. 6. h.r. 6 would actually quabtfi doctor -- quantify how this should be done on exporting l.n.g.

most of the responsibilities of regulatory commission, ferc. the department of energy's only responsibility is if in the national interest to export this and we're going to open -- we're going to keep that in the law but we want to make sure they have a 30-day response because they've had at least 18 months before to review that application. i thank my colleague for the time today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman from massachusetts wish to reserve? without objection. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: i have very little to add to what my colleague from texas just said. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i want my colleagues to understand why we should reject this rule. let me just mention two amendments that were brought to the rules committee that are germane by our colleague from california, mr. garamendi.

one says -- one amendment would clarify that a viable merchant marine is in the public interest and should be taken into consideration when processing applications under section 3 of the natural gas act. the other grants priority to the processing of approvals for l.n.g. facilities that will be supplied with or export l.n.g. by u.s. flag vessels. basically two amendments that arier main to this bill that would strengthen our shipping industry. and they were ruled out of order. out of order. for no reason. they were just randomly ruled out of order. those are the kinds of things that members of congress do not have an opportunity to vote on. when you close the process. this is the most closed congress in the history of our country. more closed rules than any other congress in history.

and so the tendency of this leadership, notwithstanding what the speaker promised, which was a more open and transparent process, has been to become the most closed congress in history. mr. speaker, i'm going to urge that we defeat the previous question. and if we defeat the previous question, i'll offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that mirrors the bipartisan measure that overwhelmingly passed the senate this month. it takes aim at some of the v.a.'s most pressing problems, including expansion of veterans' access to care, holding v.a. officials accountable and increasing medical personnel in facilities. these issue of the v.a. is something we need to address that is important, that is something that i think there is bipartisan agreement that we ought to focus on and it would be our use on this floor would be better spent dealing with that and to discuss this proposal, i yield three minutes to the congresswoman from

arizona, ms. kirk patic. the speaker: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. mrs. kirkpatrick: i rise in support of h.r. 4841, the bill i introduced to overhaul the v.a. the senate has passed this legislation and now we must act swiftly and pass the veterans' access to care through choice, accountability, and transparency act of 2014 without delay. over the past several weeks, the house veterans' affairs committee has held hearing after hearing on the multitude of issues that plague the v.a. these hearings have covered everything from the gaming strategies to hide long patient wait times and boe news received by v.a. executives to capacity problems in the v.a. health system and outdated appointment schedules software. . these hearings clearly demonstrate that the v.a. needs

an overhaul, and h.r. 4841 seeks to accomplish this. our veterans have sacrificed so much for us. we have a moral obligation to ensure that sweeping reforms are implemented across the v.a., making it an organization that exists with one purpose -- to serve our veterans. as lawmakers we cannot address these multiple issues through piecemeal legislation. we must pass legislation that addresses the patient access crisis, manages patient care, and holds employees accountable. h.r. 4841 addresses patient access by expediting the hiring of more v.a. health care providers and authorizes leases for 26 more health care facilities. it allows our rural veterans who have waited too long for appointments to see a doctor in their community.

it improves access to mobile vet centers for our rural veterans, and expands access to survivors of military sexual assault. it strengthens partnerships between the v.a. and the indian health services, an arrangement that is successfully working on the navajo nation in my district. this bill addresses the v.a.'s outdated appointment scheduling system and outdated i.t. infrastructure through a technological -- technology task force. it prohibits the falsification of data to report patient wait times, and mandates transparency by requiring the v.a. to publish patient wait times and data that measures the quality of care at all v.a. medical facilities. it holds employees accountable by giving the secretary the authority to immediately fire senior executives who fail to

serve veterans. this bill even helps our student veterans receive in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. and extends g.i. benefits to surviving spouses. this bill is truly an overhaul of the way our veterans access care, the way the v.a. manages care, and of the v.a. culture. i will fight for the provisions in h.r. 4841 in the conference committee that convenes later today. however, a congress committee is not needed if the house passes the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady is recognized for one additional minute. mrs. kirkpatrick: the senate overwhelmingly agreed that these reforms are necessary. and now the house must act without delay to make these sweeping reforms law. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: madam speaker, i yield myself one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burgess: the fact of the matter is that the conference committee is meeting on this very issue. in fact, they are having their first meeting this afternoon. the issue is access, the issues of accountability for v.a. personnel who have not held themselves to high standards. those are provision that is have already passed the floor of this house. some on suspension and some under a rule. these bills are before the conference committee with the senate. it is appropriate that they be acted upon expeditiously, but in no way does defeating the previous question enhance that flexibility or the a pidity with which those questions are taken up. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the statement of administration policy on h.r. 3301, the north american energy infrastructure act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: let me read one

line here, because h.r. 3301 would circumvent lon standing processes to determine whether electric transmission facilities are in the national interest by removing the presidential permitting requirement if president to the president, his senior advisors would recommend he veto this bill. so we are discussing a -- we are spending time here discussing a bill that will probably not be brought up at all in the senate, and will be vetoed by the white house. so this is just kind of an exercise in foot illity -- few tillity. when we should be here -- futility. when we should be here talking about climate change, if you don't want to talk about that, how about minimum wage, what about extending unemployment insurance for people who lost their jobs. you don't want to talk about that let's talk about immigration reform. let's talk about something that actually matters. something that, quite frankly,

some of the things that are urgent for us to focus on. instead we get these bills that are being brought before us under a restrictive process. again, which is in keeping with the mindset of this congress which is closed. notwithstanding what the speaker said there would be this new commitment to openness, this is now the most closed congress in history. with that i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from arizona, ms. sinema. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. ms. sinema: i rise in support of my colleague's motion. because arizona veterans demand immediate action. at the phoenix v.a. managers and employees place veterans on secret lists where they had to wait months to see a doctor. even more horrifying are new whistleblower allegations that veterans died while waiting on these lists and that v.a. managers ordered the records altered to cover up these

deaths. this is not just immoral, it is criminal. those responsible for this disaster must be prosecuted and held accountable. they should also take responsibility for what they have done to our veterans. i call on the phoenix v.a. management currently on administrative leave to resign immediately, return the phoneouses they received over the past two years, and the -- bonuses they received over the past two years and the pay they received on administrative leave. ongoing audits reveal systemic problems of wait times. with the scheduling process and honesty and integrity of the system. in a letter to the president sent yesterday, the office of special counsel reveal that the v.a.'s procedures for responding to whistleblower disclosures are woefully inadequate. this is totally unacceptable. v.a. and congress must take action to provide our veterans the care they need now, recoup bonuses paid to the executives who fraudulently manipulated the data, and fire v.a. executives responsible for these

inexcusable actions. i appreciate the work and provide the veterans the care they need. i co-sponsored and voted for both house bills. but the bottom line is that there is bipartisan legislation that can help our veterans get the care they need and hold add basketors accountable right now. so that's why i support this motion to send a bill to the president's desk as quickly as possible. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. -- madam speaker. i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burgess: access and accountability are parts of the v.a. reform bills that have been passed by this house and currently that is in conference even today. they are having their first meeting of the conference committee. i, too, i, too, wish the administration would fire --eone for incompetence with whether it be the v.a., i.r.s.,

oif -- who have -- healthcare.gov. it begs the question what do you have to do to get fired by the obama administration? i have to share with you something else, the statement of policy, first time i have seen it, but it closes with the statement, because h.r. 3301, that's the permitting bill, would circumvent long-standing and proven processes, proven processes? these processes are broken. that's why the legislation is necessary because the administration refuses to act. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. i find it somewhat interesting here that my colleague from texas is all upset about the -- the slowness of the permitting process when it comes to these pipelines. but i think that there is

bipartisan concern about the way the v.a. -- the way the v.a.'s currently being managed. i think there is bipartisan concern that we ought to make sure that the system is more responsive to our veterans. mrs. kirkpatrick came to the floor and offered a statement which will be the subject of the previous question, that i think makes a lot of sense. it would -- what she's talking about is a bill that's a companion to one senator mccain introduced in the united states senate. i'm a little bothered by the fact that there's not more impatience on the other side of the aisle to fix this v.a. system, to get it right. again, you could point all the painters you want at the administration -- fingers you want at the administration, and they are trying to get it right, but there are things you could do right now to more

aggressively address these issues. that's what mrs. kirkpatrick was talking about. i ask senator mccain is talking about in the united states senate. senator sanders as well. that to me seems urgent. we ought to do this right now. and to kind of use the excuse, well, we passed a couple of these things. maybe there will be a conference committee that will resolve all this stuff. let's just do it. let's just get this done. again i'm going to ask -- urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question so we can bring up the very legislation that mr. kirkpatrick and ms. sinema were talking about. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burgess: again, i would reiterate that veterans bills passed by this house, passed by the house of representatives, are now have gone to conference with the senate. the most expeditious way to accomplish the goals the

gentleman referred to is for the conference committee to give its report and bring that back to the floor of the house. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, let me just so much that i want to say here given the fact that there's so much we need to do to help the american people and we are not doing it in this congress. we are bringing up kind of the same old, same old energy bills that are going nowhere. that don't respond to the needs of our country, and certainly don't address the issue of climate change. my colleague talks about how the process is broken. he says the keystone x.l. has taken five years and counting. that shows that the process is broken. let me just say that that project is a highly controversial project with significant environmental impacts. because the obama administration took the time to do the environmental review, we have more information on the project's impacts on climate

change. the state department's final environmental review found that tar sands produce significantly morer carbon pollution than conventional oil. that building the keystone x.l. pipeline could allow more rapid expansion of the tar sands. and this expansion would exacerbate climate change. that's something we can't afford to do. that's something we can't afford to do. last month our nation's leading climate scientist released the country's third national climate assessment. the report confirms that climate change is real, is being caused by humans, and is already harming communities across america. the report tells us that scientific evidence is unequivocal. the impacts are being felt at every region. they are growing more urgent and they are going to get worse if we don't act. a record drought is continuing to destroy crops in california. torrential rains have flooded florida. wildfires are getting more intense. coastal areas are being inundated as sea levels rise. no sector of our economy from oyster hatcheries on the west coast to maple syrup producers in new england are untouched.

business as usual is no longer an option. the same old, same old doesn't work. and if we are serious about taking action on climate change, the same no to the keystone x.l. pipe lin to me is the obvious place to start. the pipeline would produce more carbon pollution than any other project pending in the united states. the additional carbon pollution from a single project is equiffleyebt to -- equivalent to building seven new coal-fired power plants. if we can't say no, where do we draw the line? i commend the obama administration for taking the time to get this decision right. the environment matters. for years my grends on the other -- friends on the other side of the aisle ignored the environment. it's always the environment, the environmentalists were the enemy. being good stewards of the environment was somehow a bad thing to do. look what's happening around us. and it's time that i think there

be a change of attitude and it's time we actually bring serious legislation to the floor that deals with how do we meet our energy needs? how do we also deal with this issue of climate change? with that i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burgess: the oil produced in the province of alberta belongs to the contry of canada. o, it may traverse the united states if -- yes, it may traverse the united states if the pipeline is built. if not it will traverse western canada and be shipped to china. the carbon will still go into the air. who would you rather have in charge of the refining process? refineries in china who do not have the environmental controls or refineries in texas who do? i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. madam speaker, how

much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: 4 1/2 minutes. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, let me say that i want to ask unanimous consent to insert the tex -- text of the amount i would offer if we defeat the previous question in the order along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. . i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question and i aurge no vote on the rule and i want to remind my colleagues what we're going to bring up if we defeat the previous question we'll bring up an amendment to the rule that brings legislation forward that mirrors the bipartisan measure that overwhelmingly passed the senate this month dealing with some of the v.a.'s most pressing problems. that is why defeating the previous question would be important. let me just close again by saying, again, on the environmental issues here,

listening to my friend from texas, -- listening to my friend from texas talk about the issue of climate change, all you hear is excuses why we can't do something. why we need to do the same old, same old. i of -- i have to tell you if we don't deal with this issue sooner rather than later, then history will not look kind upon us. we may not have a history in the future if we don't address this issue sooner rather than later. this is a big keel eel -- this is a big deal. this is a big deal. this is something we ought to be talking about on the house floor at this very moment. -- moment. 23 you want to talk about an energy policy, we ought to also talk about climate change. yet there's nothing. there's nothing. it really is appalling. and the legislation we're bringing, that's being brought before us today is going nowhere. we're wasting our time talking about bills that are going

nowhere. going nowhere in the senate, the white house has already issued a veto threat and so we're just kind of spinning our wheels here. so maybe we can use this week to do something productive. if you defeat the previous question and we can actually bring up the senate-passed v.a. bill and get that done. and help our veterans. get it done quickly. maybe that would be a good thing to do. maybe that's -- that would make this week worth it, rather than a week in which we talk about thicks that are going nowhere. so with that, madam speaker, i urge, again, my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. i urge a no vote on the rule. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, i yield myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: madam speaker, if were really true that the actions we take here don't mean anything, then why did the

department of energy suddenly release one of the export licenses merely on the fact that the energy and commerce committee held a hearing on h.r. a cory gardner's bill, allow time certain for the export license to be decided upon? why does senator udall have similar legislation pending over in the senate? i would say this is one proposal that perhaps has a very good chance of becoming law, even in divided government such as we have today. on the issue of the previous question. i would remind the body that the most expeditious way to get to a solution for pe -- for the problems being experienced by our nation's veterans within the v.a. system is for the conference committee to proceed. if we pass something today it goes back to the senate. it doesn't expedite a darn thing. the conference committee is the correct way for that to go. i do urge my colleagues to vote yes on the previous question.

today's rule provides for the consideration of two key pieces of legislation to move our country toward a more energy independent environment. i certainly thank chairman upton and cory gardner for producing bipartisan pieces of legislation to address real problems that have arisen. in the permitting process, when politics are injected into what should be a merit-based system. h.r. 6, the domestic prosperity and global freedom act, and h.r. 3301, the north american energy infrastructure act, are thoughtful pieces of legislation that deserve the support of this body. for that reason, i yield back the balance of my time. i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: on that, 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 risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 219 this nays are 184, the previous question is ordered. the question on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this is is 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 221, the nays are 186, the resolution is adopted. without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the ant to clause 6 of is in the ouse committee of the whole house on the state of the union. will mr. hultgren kindly take the chair. the chair: though house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 4413 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to re-authorize the commodity futures trading commission to better protect futures customers, to provide end users with market certainty, to make basic reforms to ensure transparency and accountability as a commission, to help farmers, ranchers, and end users manage risks to help keep consumer costs low, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on monday, june

23, 20145rks request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in house report 113-476 by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, had been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 113-476, on which further proceed wrgs postponed in the following order. amendment number 2 by ms. jackson lee of texas. amendment number four by ms. water of california, amendment number six by ms. jackson lee of texas. amendment number 8 by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic votes in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote printed in 113-476 by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 113-476,n house report

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 163. the nays are 249. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the

request for recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-476, by the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4, printed in house report number 113-476, offered by ms. waters of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas e -- the chair: on this vote the yeas are 1678. the nays are 242, the amendment

is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report number 113-476, by the gentlewoman from wisconsin, which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed boy voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report number 113-476, offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 173. the i nayses are 239. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-476 by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redelingt the amendment. the chair: amendment number 6, printed in house report number 113-476, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.

those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. it this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 177. the nays are 233. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote op amendment number 8 printed in house report 113-476, by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8, printed in house report number 113-476, offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the eas are --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 252. the nays are 158. the amendment is adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule the committee rises. madam speaker, the committee of

the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 4413 and pursuant to house resolution 629, i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 4413 and pursuant to the house resolution 629 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the mendment is agreed to.

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 re-authorize the commodity futures trading commission, to better protect futures customers, to provide end users with market certainty, to make basic reforms to ensure transparency and accountability at the commission, to help and end anchers, and users manage risks to help keep consumer costs low, and for . her purposes the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? ms. cus remember i have a motion to recommit it the desk. the speaker pro tempore: are you opposed to the bill? ms. kuster in the current form. the clerk: ms. kuster of new hampshire moves to recommit the

bill h.r. 4413 to the committee on agriculture -- ms. kuster: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the reading is dispensed. the house will come to order. the gentlewoman from new hampshire is recognized for five minutes. ms. kuster: thank you, madam speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted the bill will immediately move to final passage, as amended. madam speaker, i commend chairman lucas and ranking member peterson for their bipartisan leadership of our committee. their pragmatic work together across the aisle is exactly what the american people expect but so rarely get from this congress. i am proud to serve with them and all of our colleagues on

the agriculture committee, republican and democrat, to address the issues important to rural america and to communities all across our country. this includes re-authorizing the commodity futures trading commission, the sheriff overseeing much of wall street. every day the cftc defends the main street businesses and middle-class families from the same reckless behavior that crashed our economy just a few years ago. we must re-authorize the cftc and ensure that the cops on the beat have the authority they need to protect our farmers, consumers, investors and retirees from fraud and abuse by the very worst actors on wall street. now, don't get me wrong. this bill is far from perfect. my amendment would address some of these flaws, including the failure to address the prospect of soaring energy prices facing

american consumers which should be a top priority for the cftc. madam speaker, when gas prices spike, they immediately hit the pocketbook of every consumer, especially the constituents that i represent in new hampshire's north country and communities all across our state, some of which are already paying close to $4 per gallon of gasoline. when americans pull up to the pump, they deserve to pay a fair price and not be gouged because of excessive speculation. my amendment would help keep gas prices in check by requiring that the cftc use its full authority to immediately curve excessive speculation in economic markets. in addition, this amendment would require the cftc to report when companies move

their operations abroad simply to avoid the rules governing u.s. markets. when companies relocate their headquarters for outsourced jobs to evade consumer protections, the american people deserve to know. and finally, my amendment would ensure that foreign businesses comply with u.s. laws, to prevent fraud and manipulation in our markets. american companies must already follow anti-fraud and anti-manipulation rules, which protect consumers and the integrity of our market. surely we can all agree that foreign companies must also follow the same safeguards against fraud and abuse that apply to american companies. so let's put partisanship aside and give the sheriff of wall street the backup it needs to protect main street. let's vote to keep gas prices in check for the middle class,

for families all across this country. let's vote to hold companies accountable when they outsource jobs, and let's vote to prevent foreign firms from defrauding our constituents. let's vote for my amendment. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: madam speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. mr. lucas: thank you, madam speaker. first of all, i'd like to state that i really do appreciate the cooperative nature of the ag committee and the way that we have worked hard to put this very logical piece of legislation together to address a variety of issues. i must say, though, in all respect to my colleague, i don't believe this particular language ever came up in any of the markups. so i must respectfully, in that regard, say this is the wrong

hour to be suggesting this language. but i would go farther than that to say to my friends, if you're concerned about the price of fuel, if you're concerned about the availability of energy for industry and for individuals, we have some really good legislation out here that you should consider. you should be looking at h.r. 3301, the north american energy infrastructure act. you should be looking at h.r. 6, the domestic prosperity and global freedom act. you should be looking at h.r. 4899, the lowering gasoline prices to fuel america that works act. if you really want to make a difference, work for those pieces of legislation, support those pieces of legislation. but otherwise, let's take the bill that's been so carefully crafted, let's reject the motion to recommit with instructions. let's just pass the bill. and with that i do the greatest thing i can do for you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous

question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. ms. kuster: madam speaker, on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill, if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 191. the nays are 220. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: nays are 144. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut -- kentucky seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on h.r. 3301. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 636 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 3301. the chair now appoints the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black, to preside over the ommittee of the whole. the chair: the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 3301,

which the clerk will report by title. the chair: operation or maintenance of oil or natural gas pipelines or electric transmission facilities as a national boundary of the united states for the import or export of oil, natural gas, or electricity to or from canada or mexico and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield, and the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: thank you, madam chair. at this time i would like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, the chairman of the full energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. mr. upton: thank you, madam chair. you know a new era for north american energy and it's time for the congress infrastructure to finally catch up.

that's why we wrote h.r. 3301, the north american energy infrastructure act, with my friend and colleague, gene green, from texas. it it's lessons concerned from the keystone x.l. pipeline debacle we are creating a fair and transparent approval process for cross border energy projects. put them all on a level playing field finally, securing lower energy prices and, yes, plenty of jobs. north america's energy abundance has been a game changer. our couldn't nent, indeed, -- our continent's geopolitical benefits are almost too good to believe. however, outdated, unnecessary federal regs are standing in the way of this potential, including red tape surrounding energy infrastructure projects that cross the canadian or the

mexican border. these job-creating projects are a critical part of the architecture of abundance and, yes, they can provide a cheaper and more secure energy policy. simply put, we cannot become an energy superpower without upgrading the energy infrastructure linking us with our neighbors. we all know about the keystone x.l., the oil pipeline that would bring enough canadian oil into the u.s. to displace opec imports while supporting up to 42,000 jobs, according to the obama administration's own estimates. many of us also know that the project has been extensively studied and be found certainly environmentally safe. nonetheless, for nearly six years this administration has come up with one excuse after another for delaying its decision on the project. keystone x.l. has yet to

deliver any oil, but it has already delivered a message that our process for approving such projects is, yes, badly broken, and yet the white house is threatening to veto the bill, claiming the bill will kir sum vent long-standing and proven processes. while h.r. 3301 does not address keystone x.l.'s pipeline, yes, it does not address it, this house already passed legislation doing exactly that. this bill will ensure that important projects would not be stuck in limbo once being fully vetted. it would update and modernize cross-border and infrastructure projects, eliminating the opportunities for delay and putting in place the same standards of review for oil pipelines, electric transmission facilities and natural gas lines. i should also emphasize that the pipeline and transmission

projects impacted by this bill would still be subjected to the same environmental and safety reviews as would a comparable project that stayed within the united states. and you know those safety measures have been an important priority for our committee and or the congress, including the tough new pipeline safety measure that we enacted two years ago signed by president obama. but these cross-border projects would no longer face additional red tape and open-ended delays simply because they crossed a national border. that's what this bill does. this commonsense bill enjoys bipartisan support, especially from border state members who know full well the economic benefits of the u.s. of such projects. so i urge all of us here to join to support the north american energy infrastructure act. we need to stand together and

say yes to american jobs and yes to energy, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. mr. whitfield: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: madam chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. waxman: climate change is the biggest energy challenge we face. so before approving a multibillion-dollar energy infrastructure project that will last for decades, we need to evaluate its climate impact. that's the standard the president rightly set last june, but this test is a significant obstacle for tar sands pipelines because they would carry the dirtiest fuel on the planet. over the last few years, house republicans have repeatedly tried to short-circuit the

process and mandate the approval of the keystone x.l. tar sands pipeline. this bill we're considering today goes even further. it creates a new process to rubber stamp every pending and future tar sands pipeline. the bill makes an end run around the national environmental policy act. under this bill, instead of conducting an environmental review of a whole pipeline that crosses the border with canada or mexico, the nepa review, the environmental review would be limited to just the small segment of the pipeline crossing the border. that eliminates any meaningful federal review of the environmental impacts of oil pipelines. for example, under this bill,

the environmental review of the keystone x.l. pipeline would only examine the environmental impacts of that small piece of the pipeline that crosses the border with canada. the review could not look at the impacts on climate change of all the other tar sands oil moved through the pipeline. it could not look at the impact on the aquifers or landowners in nebraska, for example, nor the public safety or oil spill concerns here in the united states. that dramatically narrowed scope of review is just another way to gut the federal environmental review of tar sands pipelines. but the bill doesn't stop there. rebuttable es a presumption that keystone x.l. and other tar sands pipelines are in the public interest.

well, if they have a rebuttable presumption that tar sands pipeline is in the public interest, that tips the scale in favor of its approval. that's a subtle but significant change that makes it much more likely that these projects will go forward. and if the president rejects the keystone x.l. or another pipeline because it is not in the national interest, which is a requirement in the law today, -- ill would reject the erect the project from the grave. that's why i call this bill the zombie pipeline bill. in the northern part of the united states, another controversial pipeline project could carry tar sands oil from canada through new hampshire and vermont to portland, maine where it would be loaded onto

tankers. that project wouldn't require any approval at all under this bill's new permitting process because the bill exempts major expansions of existing pipelines and reverses the pipeline's flow from even that minimal process. and the bill would allow for unlimited exports of liquefied natural gas through canada to xico without any controls or exemptions. that's why do you, alcoa have crit -- dow, alcoa have criticized this bill. while the administration opposes this bill, citing the 120-day dead libe imposed by the bill -- deadline imposed by e bill, would curtail issues relating to the projects, and

would raise serious trade implications, the statement of the administration policy says that if h.r. 3301 is presented to the president, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. faced with the threat of dangerous climate change, we have a responsibility to think through the impacts of proposed cross-border energy infrastructure projects. if congress is going to establish a new permitting rule or rules through legislation, it should do so in a thoughtful and balanced way. instead, this bill creates a process that rubber stamps project and eliminates meaningful environmental review and public participation. this will undoubtedly benefit transcanada and other multinational oil companies, and it will undoubtedly help

them, but it will harm the american people that we're here to represent. i oppose the keystone x.l. pipeline, but even if you support the x.l. pipeline, this is a bad bill. i would urge all members to vote against this legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry, who's a member of the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for three minutes. mr. terry: thank you, mr. chairman. today marks the 2,104th day since the original keystone x.l. pipeline application was filed at the u.s. state department, as rurd by law. for five years this administration has either just been completely incompetent or has pour political purposes

decided -- for plit account purposes decided to placate the base. the same folks that said he would boycott the election if he signed this permit. now, regardless, this administration's failure to make a decision on a single project in over 2,100 days should leave every one of our constituents shaking heads. i led on this issue. we've given this president numerous opportunities to get this process right, which he has not done to date. i introduced the first bill in may of 2011, to put on the shot clock for the president's decision. the bill passed. it was even signed into law later, but he went ahead and killed the permit instead of following through. so later that year, december 1, we introduced a second bill to move the decision from the state department to ferc. in june, 2012, we introduced

another bill declaring no presidential permit is needed for a border crossing. and then last year in march, i introduced h.r. 3, the northern route approval act, which stated that no presidential permit shall be required for the x.l. keystone pipeline. now, we're doing this because we understand that if we're energy independent we are more secure. this is an issue of national security, and we're going to take as many whacks at trying to get this passed as it takes. so the legislation we're considering today is more than five years in the making or almost five years in the making. i'm happy to join with chairman upton in supporting this bill that comes from our committee with bipartisan support. as energy and -- as our energy future and security goes, so goes our economy and our nation. the president failed in his

leadership. he's hurt job creation, hurt our economy, made us more dependent on opec and venezuela and diminished our standing with our nation's number one trading partner. the failure to lead on this issue shows that his process is clearly broken. so today we now consider a different process, and if signed into law, the department of commerce would be in charge of permitting oil pipelines that cross our border based on the same standard of whether it's in our national interest. ferc would be in charge of permitting natural gas pipelines that cross our borders. the department of energy would be in charge of permitting electrical transmission lines that come over our border. again, under the same standards of is it in our national interest. where i come from, that is called common sense. we need to take the politics out of this, election politics out of this and go with the experts that will determine whether or not based on the

facts whether it's in the national interest. and by the way, the last speaker i would disagree with on whether or not there would be no environmental oversight. just like it is today, any of hose projects, if there's a -- mr. whitfield: i yield the gentleman one additional minute. mr. terry: well, i appreciate all of that. the reality here with the type of studies that have been -- by the way, the state department has over 10,000 pages of environmental studies that were done. even under this process where you let the experts in that respective areas do their job, if there's a federal triggery in here, all of that has to occur, just like with any other project. now, we also heard that there would be this tremendous amount of natural gas exporting without permitting. what was left out of that sentence is that for there to

be an export facility, it has to be permitted, and all of the environmental studies and all of the other studies that are required will be done on behalf of the exporting -- export facility. so i think we need to put those in context, because you just can't have half the facts laying out there. you need to have all the facts to make the decision. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves. and the gentleman from alifornia is recognized. mr. waxman: i'm pleased to yield to ms. schakowsky, an important member of the committee. the chair: the gentlelady is -- the gentlelady is recognized. ms. schakowsky: my republican colleagues argue we need more bills like h.r. 3301 to extract and transport oil and gas as quickly as possible. but building a modern energy infrastructure for the 21st century requires more than just drill manager wells, fill manager rail cars with crude oil

and put manager tanker trucks on our highways. a modern, 21st century infrastructure must address the threat of climate change, the biggest energy challenge we face as a country. republicans can deny it all they want, but we can't have a meaningful conversation about america's energy infrastructure without also having a conversation about climate. we have a rapidly diminishing window to act to reduce our carbon pollution before the catastrophic impact of climate change are irreversible. we're seeing today the devastating consequences in many parts of our country. the international energy agency has concluded that if the world does not take action to reduce carbon pollution before 2017, the dangerous levels of carbon emissions would be locked in by the energy infrastructure existing at that time. that energy infrastructure decisions that we make today will have a real impact on whether we can mitigate climate

change in the future or lock in climate -- carbon pollution for yen rations to come. my republican colleagues don't like to hear this -- for generations to come. my republican colleagues don't like to hear this message. if enacted into law h.r. 3301 would move us backwards in our fight to address climate change. it essentially pretends climate change doesn't exist. h.r. 3301 would rubber stamp permits for pipelines to carry tar sands crude from canada to the united states. tar sands crude is the dirtiest fuel on the planet from a climate perspective, but this creates a permit process that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the federal government to say no. the bill even allows the oil industry to make major modifications to its pipelines without getting any approval at all that means if a company wants to increase its pipeline capacity or reverse an existing pipeline to carry more tar sands crude from canada into the

united states the company can just do it, no questions asked. building new tar sands pipeline or expanding existing ones could have profund environmental impact but the bill allows for no meaningful environmental review. the bill says the federal government can only examine the environmental impact of the cross border segment of the project. it's almost hard to believe that that's what the bill does, but it's due. far pipeline spanning hundreds of miles, the environmental review will focus on only a tiny part that crosses the u.s. border. that eliminates the possibility of any meaningful examination of the carbon pollution impacts of these pipelines. that's irresponsible. we know from our examination of the keystone x.l. pipeline that it will facilitate production of tar sands crude which is on arch 17% more greenhouse gas intensive than the average crude refined in the united states. we should be examining the carbon impact of every pipeline before we approve it, not

ignoring the problem altogether. that brings us back to keystone x.l. this bill gives transcanada virtual assurance that keystone x.l. will be improved, even if president obama finds that the keystone x.l. pipeline is not in the national interest and denies the presidential permit, this bill allows transcanada to simply reapply and approve it under the new rubber stamp process with no consideration of the profound environmental climate. i want to remind my colleagues that this debate and this vote are part of the permanent record. don't betray your grandchildren and their grandchildren by condition democratting home to a planet where it is hard to breathe and agriculture is affected. the future will belong to the country that builds an energy infrastructure to support a cleaner, low carbon economy. it is our responsibility to lead the country and even the world in that direction. this bill takes us backwards.

i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 3301 and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta, a member of the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. latta: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from kentucky, for yielding. appreciate it. mr. speaker, american innovation and advanced drilling technologies has unleashed an abundant energy resource. for the 60,000 manufacturing jobs i represent, the u.s. energy renaissance has increased our global competitiveness, resulting in expanded operation and new jobs. ramped up domestic energy production has helped absorb recent crude oil price volatility amid turmoil in the mideast.

when it comes to natural gas, we have enough that surplus can be exported without impacting the affordability of our domestic supply. for allies looking to diversify their energy supply, american natural gas can provide secure access while bolstering our geopolitical standing. while the energy industry has been a story of positive growth and american innovation at its best, it's also a source of unnecessary frustration. president obama likes to take credit for the growth, but growth in the energy industry has occurred despite his best efforts to lock up access and regulate producers out of business. recent studies have made clear that virtually all the increase in production have occurred on state and privately owned lands while production on federal lands has decreased. the administration has also been cree auto-- creating obstacles needed for developing

much-needed energy instra -- infrastructure. we are aware of the unnecessary delays the president has place thond ekeystone x.l. pipeline. the 820,000 barrels of oil it would bring to the u.s. each day, and the over 40,000 jobs it would create. we can't afford to have more pipelines delayed that would help america's energy security. this is why the north american energy infrastructure act is an important and necessary piece of legislation. i thank chairman upton for his leadership on the issue. this bill embodies the type of good governance that hardworking american taxpayers deserve. i urge my colleagues to support it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: i have the opportunity now to yield five minutes to my colleague from california, lois capps, a senior member of our committee and a very respected member as well. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.

mrs. capps: i thank my colleague, my respected colleague, mr. waxman for yielding time. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3301. h.r. 3301 would eliminate meaningful review of the environmental impact of proposed cross border energy projects. the bill dramatically narrows the scope of environmental review to only the cross border segment of the energy project, that tiny portion that actually physically crosses the national boundary. this makes no sense. these pipelines, these transmission lines, they are major infrastructure projects. they can span hundreds of miles. they cross through private property, water bodies, farms, and many other sensitive areas. and they carry substances that can catch fire or spill and

pollute the environment. to understand the potential environmental impact of such an energy project, we need to look at the project as a whole, ignoring the potential environmental or safety risks for every part of the project except that tiny sliver of land t the national boundary defies common sense. imagine going to the doctor if you're feeling sick and the doctor gives you a clean bill of health but he's only looked at your elbow. that's exactly what this bill does. it green lights these projects without any meaningful environmental review. and no meaningful review means no opportunity to mitigate potential harm to public health, public safety, or the environment. that's just reckless. the white house has threatened to veto this bill because it provides inadequate time for environmental reviews and

environmental organizations are universally opposed to it. 13 environmental groups, including the natural resources defense council and the sierra club, sent a letter emphasizes, and i quote from their letter, this legislation could severely limit environmental review and public input to a narrow cross border segment of projects, thereby precluding review of the full project's impact, end quote. and the national wildlife federation says, and i quote from their statement, that this bill takes a hatchet to the national environmental policy act. end quote. the league of conservation voters warns that this dangerous bill would gut the review process and effectively exempt the projects from the national environmental policy act. these environmental project, these energy infrastructure projects, will last for decades.

we need to understand the impacts of these projects before they are constructed so that we can protect public health and safety and the environment. ignoring the impact will not make them disappear. h.r. 3301 defies common sense and i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from louisiana, dr. cassidy a member of the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. cassidy: thank you, mr. whitfield. this act is important. it's important for americans. first, to allay some fear, does not eliminate the need for federal permitting for the entire process. but what it does is eliminate the president's ability to sit on a project, not allowing it to go forward, abusing the trust of the american people that he's

actually working in their interest as opposed to pursuing his own narrow agenda. let's make this very clear. the fact that the president is just reviewing this is beyond credibility. but what it does do is create interminable delay, eliminates 20,000 to 40,000 just on one project which the -- the keystone x.l. pipeline which the other side is speaking of. by the way, when we buy products from can dark 80% of the dollars we spend there stay on the north american continent. improving the economy not just in canada but also in the united states. if we buy oil from overseas, say the mideast, only about 40% of those dollars return. this is beyond the impact of building pipelines themselves but also our global economy. now the state department, administration's state department, has said that this project, keystone x.l. pipeline,

will have negligible impact on the economy. indeed if we continue to truck or ship by rail, more people will die, americans will die, mr. speaker, than if we build the pipeline in which they anticipate, of course, no deaths. one thing this will do, this will really -- the opposition of the president and the other side, it will do wonders for china's economy. canada has just announced they are going to build a pipeline to their west coast to send these oil sands to china, creating chinese jobs, but also chinese pollution that once it's into the atmosphere will blow over onto the united states. talk about a fruitless policy of delay. now, let me just finishly saying, there's one more aspect of this, it helps create north american security. no longer are we buying oil from countries which hate us, financing their efforts to undermine our society. rather, we keep that money in the -- with our closest ally who

in turn bias goods for us. we should approve this bill, this project in particular, and build it for americans. it is better for the environment, it is better for our economies, most of all, it is better for our workers. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. and the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: at this time, i yield four minutes to our colleague from the state of new york, an active lead for the energy policy. the chair: and the gentleman from new york is recognized for four minutes. mr. tonko: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman from california, our distinguished ranking member on the committee for yielding. mr. speaker, it is unfortunate that the energy bills before us this week do not lay out a road map for where we truly need to go. that is to a future in which we have reduced our reliance on fossil fuels, greatly increased our focus on energy efficiency and expanded our use of renewable energy. h.r. 3301 and h.r. 6 are all about keeping us dependent upon

fossil fuels, especially oil and gas. h.r. 3301 establishes a new process for considering and approving cross border energy products. pipelines and certainly transmission lines. in fact, it would be good to have it define -- to have a define and predictable process for evaluating these processes and either approving or rejecting them within a reasonable time frame. unfortunately, this bill is all about approve theegs projects, quickly. quickly with minimal consideration of their value to all sectors of our economy, the value to our consumers, and certainly the value to our environment. the advocates for this bill and this infrastructure approval process sound as if we have never approved cross-border projects. but in fact, we have many cross-border pipelines and transmission lines this infrastructure, once in place,

operates for decades. all projects are not all equal in their impacts or certainly are not all equal in their size this bill does not require sufficientage cease of the overall -- sufficient analyses of the overall benefits of the project. it is not enough to determine if any project is in our national security interest. those are important interests, of course, but there are many others as well. the public, state and local governments, nonfossil fuel business interests and others should be able to offer their proposed projects. this bill virtually cuts them out of that effort. you do not gain public support for infrastructure projects by cutting the public out of the decisionmaking. h.r. 3301 does not provide for sufficient public input or sufficient weighing of overall national benefits and costs of these projects. supporters of h.r. 3301 claim

that this bill is not about the keystone x.l. pipeline. well, h.r. 3301 is not a keystone x.l. approval bill, per se, but that prosect certainly would be resurrected and approved if this bill were to become law. this bill should not become law. it does not provide that type of thoughtful, comprehensive and certainly inclusive process that should guide decisions, decisions that impact energy resources for many decades to come. i urge defeat of this legislation, and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield -- the chair: the gentleman yields back and the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: yes. may i inquire how much time we have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from kentucky has 17 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. whitfield: and the gentleman from california? the chair: the gentleman from california has 13 1/2 minutes. mr. whitfield: well, at this

time i recognize mifes for as much time as i -- myself for as much times as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. whitfield: i point out that h.r. 3301 really in a way helps an inequity. today, natural pipelines are treated one way if they cross international boundaries and oil pipelines and transmission nes are treated in a different way. for example, a natural gas pipeline crossing into canada would not require a presidential permit. but oil pipelines and transmission lines crossing international boundaries require a presidential permit. and i might add that congress never passed legislation requiring a presidential permit. that was a power that a president by executive order took even before president

obama did it. but here's the key factor here. his law, 3301, would treat all pipelines the same, wh it's natural gas, whether it's oil -- whether it's natural gas, whether it's oil, whether it's a transmission line. now, i know that arguments are being made here primarily based on keystone and a lot of argument is being made about climate change. i would say to all of the american people that we have people coming into congress on a regular basis from developing countries of the world who say that climate change is not their number one concern. they're more concerned about food. they're more concerned about sanitary living conditions. they're more concerned about clean water. they're more concerned about jobs and the ability to provide income for their families. and as a matter of fact, polls

in america have shown that climate change is way down the list of primary concerns of people. now, i know that tom stier, who i understand is at the white house today, is his number one issue and he says he's going to spend $100 million against republican candidates or any candidate that does not recognize climate change as one of the most important issues facing mankind. so i simply wanted to make that comment, sure, climate change is important, and i might add that emissions from energy produce causes in america today are the lowest they have been in 20 years. so america does not have to take a backseat to anyone on addressing emissions from greenhouse gases. and i might tell you that we're the only country in the world where if natural gas prices go up we won't even be able to

build a new coal plant in america because the technology is not commercially available at a cost that any utility could afford. so even if europe, natural gas prices went up. they moth ball natural gas plants and they are last year in europe they imported 53% of all our coal. and yet the president in the white house today has such extreme views that if our gas prices go up we don't even have the option in an affordable way to build a new coal plant to help us meet our base loads. and if we're going to have an economy that is not sluggish the way it has been consistently under president obama, we have to have affordable, abundant and reliable energy. and that's what this bill is about. now, people are saying if you

pass 3301 you're exempting oil and natural gas -- oil and transmission lines from nepa review. i want you to know there are 33 other environmental laws, like the endangered species act, clean water, rivers and harbors, national historic preservation, clean air act hat would trigger. if federal action is triggered, then it would be triggered even under 3301 unless, of course, it's a migratory bird and bald and golden eagle protection act which this administration has granted windmills an exemption from. so you can kill all the migratory birds you want and bald eagles if you're a windmill company you won't be prosecuted, but if you're a timber company you will be fined $100,000 and be convicted of a felony. in conclusion, my remarks at

this point, i would simply say the bill is designed not to expedite the keystone pipeline, because it can't be approved under 3301. it's under the presidential permit process, but the presidential permit process is arbitrary. even the state department said it would be of negligible environmental impact to approve the keystone pipeline, but all 3301 does is says we're going to treat oil pipelines and transmission lines that cross international boundaries with canada or mexico exactly the way natural gas pipelines are treated today. so it's not anything extraordinary. it's not anything radical. it's the way natural gas pipelines are created today, and we believe that's the way

to go and that's what 3301 is all about. and with that i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves, and the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i listened carefully to the comments of the gentleman from kentucky, and i couldn't really follow a lot of it. after all, if the price of , that would oes up perhaps help the coal industry because the coal industry is not able to compete economically when the price of natural gas is low because if you're building a utility you might as well buy a natural gas. it's cheaper. of course, the coal people say, it's the government that's doing it. but it's the marketplace that's doing it. and the other comment i found peculiar, we don't need to have the national environmental policy act evaluation because we got the endangered species

act evaluation. well, the endangered species act is looking at endangered species, but what about the rest of the environmental review that would be eliminated if this bill were adopted? especially when we're talking about the impact on climate change and all the other environmental considerations. so i must say while i came here with a clear view, i'm reaffirmed in my view the gentleman from kentucky did not even come close to persuading me. i at this time want to yield four minutes to our colleague from the state of texas, mr. green. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank our ranking member on the committee. maybe my four minutes i can convince you. mr. speaker, i rise today as a proud co-sponsor and in support of h.r. 3301, the north american energy infrastructure act. passing h.r. 3301 would help

create the north american energy market. it will help make us energy independent for north america between our two free trading partners, mexico and canada. i also need to correct the record. there's a lot of misinformation about this legislation. i hope to make a few things clear. commerce decisions are the responsibility of congress. today we can have 1,000 tank car train with crude oil come from canada without any permit, but to build a pipeline, it's been delayed for years because it couldn't get a presidential permit. we can bring the same substance of canada and train cars but can't put it on a safer mode of pipelines. congress has not acted on legislative cross-border infrastructure since 1850. i think it's time to change that. the presidential permit process that colleague is defending so

vigorously, the process could be changed depending who's in the white house. my colleague may support the process now but may oppose the process later. h.r. 3301 gives statutory certainty to build transmission lines, oil pipelines or natural gas pipelines with our two free trade neighbors, canada and mexico. h.r. 3301 eliminates uncertainty that crippled infrastructure development. these pipelines are not paid for by tax money. they're paid for by investors. how does h.r. 330 -- however, h.r. 3301 does not eliminate the environmental reviews or cross-border infrastructure. in fact, the bill cements environmental reviews by putting it into law. the bill does not eliminate the public interest or deem application approved. the bill guarantees the public interest must be met but in a timely fashion. finally, the bill does not apply to the current project applications like keystone x.l. this bill doesn't go into effect if it's passed by the senate until 2016.

keystone may or may not have their project approval -- their plan approval by then, but they'd have to get back in line like everyone else if this bill goes into effect. we've grandfathered current applications into current law. there are more than 60 cross-border projects that have been built over the last few decades, but today there are more than 10 applications at the state department awaiting action because political decisions have been bogged down in the process. cross-border infrastructure is important in the public interest. the state department has stated additional pipeline capacity to advance the strategic interest of the united states, send positive economic signals and provide construction jobs for workers in the u.s. we can build cross-border infrastructure while protecting the environment. federal agents are required to consider environmental impacts of the actual infrastructure. federal, state and local agencies approve domestic projects every single day. all the opponents of h.r. 3301 has talked about keystone x.l. and environmental reviews.

we've solved both of these issues. advance the public interest of the united states, secure our domestic energy needs for decades to come, solidify our relationship to our closest partners in canada and mexico and made america a new global powerhouse in the energy sector. h.r. 3301 is not about the path. h.r. 3301 is securing economic security and environmental needs for the future and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back, and the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i reserve our time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. and the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, at this time i wish to yield time to the gentleman from the state of utah, mr. matheson, and we want to yield him one minute with an option on another 30 seconds or even a full second

minute. but one minute is yielded. the chair: and the gentleman from my home state of utah is yielded a minute to a minute and a half. mr. matheson: i thank my friend for yielding me time and giving me some wiggle room as well. i rise in support of the north american energy infrastructure act. i want to thank mr. green, my colleague, and also mr. upton, who have worked so much on this bill. our country is on the cusp of not only becoming the world's leading energy producer, but we're also close to achieving north american energy independence with our allies to the north and south, canada and mexico. with this can come jobs and economic growth, greater energy security and less uncertainty n our economy. however unnecessarily exomple kated and outdaded -- outdated roadblocks are in place to hind they are progress. the process was developed through a series of add hoc

executive ordered -- of ad hoc executive orders which created a high level of uncertainty for everyone sthrovepled bill would work to modernize and streamline the process, providing a greater degree of clarity about the process. s that process in desperate need of reform. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i'm pleased at this time to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. gallego. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gallego: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the time as well. i am not much for hyperbole or finger pointing. i want to talk about what it is that is important about this bill for me as the representative of much of the

eagle fort area in texas in the permian basin. it's not about keystone or the president because it doesn't go into effect until 2016. all my life i grew up hearing about the ashe oil wars and i -- the arab oil wars and i remember well the arab oil embargo as a kid growing up in west texas. i think we can do something today that secures our energy future for our kids and grandkids. we can do this carefully, making sure we preserve the environment for future generations. sections 3 and 7 of the natural gas act which apply to the construction of facileties, still amy here. they must still meet the same safety standards we all know are very important. as mr. matheson indicated, our neighbors to the north and south are -- to the north and south are increasingly vital partners as the rest of the world go into the global economy. we need not constantly rely on oil from unstable parts of the

world when we can get it here at home and get it safely, underscore safely, and cleanly. we can help our neighbors get it safely and cleanly too. my hometown of alpine is not located near oil or gas fields but it is on the main line of a railroad. in 2010, only 1% of u.s. oil production was moved by rail. last year it was up to 10%. i've personally seen several derailments. town had k of us in problems for a year because of derailment. i want to be sure my son can float in the river, and that when he flips a switch the light comes on, and that when he or his kids cook the energy is there that they need. i want to thank the ranking member for the use of the time and the chair and ranking member for they work. thank you for letting me share my thoughts and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentleman yields

back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i'd like to make an inquiry on the amount of time remaining on both sides. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky has 11 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from california has 5 1/2 minutes. mr. whitfield: we don't have any more speakers on our side, i'll reserve the balance of our time and let the gentleman from california proceed. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i'm ready to yield back the balance of our time. mr. whitfield: i'm going to make one final comment, if you want to make a final comment. mr. waxman: i will take back some of the time, yield myself two minutes, just to say that the president has looked at this bill and they just cited a must remember of concerns about it and they very seldom come in with a statement of administration policy but they did say on this bill that they

would be against it. they think that this bill raises serious trade implications by eliminating the current statutory requirement that the department of energy authorize orders for the natural gas exports. they've indicated that they didn't think this bill is going anywhere because they think the senate sun likely to take it up. there are serious and urgent problems facing this nation, unemployment, the need for immigration reform, climate change, gun violence in our children's schools, foreign policy challenges, but once again, house republicans are ignoring the real issues, instead, they are wasting time on counterproductive legislation that has no prospect of enactment. mr. chairman, i believe we have better things to do. i would urge opposition to the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized.

mr. whitfield: thank you very much. i would say to the american people that certainly energy is vitally important and that's why we've introduced this bill. that's why we brought this bill to the floor. because when you talk about creating jobs, stimulating the economy, you have to have low cost, fay ford -- affordable, abundant and reliable energy or you cannot compete in the global marketplace. as i said earlier, i want to reiterate once again, that this bill does nothing but make the decision that we're going to treat oil pipelines, natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines all the same. right now, a natural gas pipeline that crosses an international boundary does not require a presidential permit. but an oil pipeline and a transmission line to bring electricity across the border does require a presidential

permit. and as many speakers have said today that presidential permit or authority was not granted by the congress, it was taken by executive orders. so all we're doing is saying, we're going to treat all of them the same. now, some people are saying that, well, you're eliminating the need for nepa, you're not allowing nepa review. i pointed out that there are 33 environmental laws that all of these pipelines or transmission lines will be subject to. any federal action like crossing a stream that would act -- that would create necessary for clean water act permit could very well generate a need for a nepa review. nothing in this bill would limit the application of nepa to the rest of the project. it would -- it certainly would

apply to the cross-border but it would not limit application to the rest 240e6 -- rest of the project. if a project requires a right of way across federal lands, the nepa review would be initiated. nothing in the bill would exempt the project from requiring applicable clean water act permit, clean air permits, endangered species permit or any other federal permit. so i would respectfully request members to support this commonsense bill. it would bring certainty to entities that are trying to bring more energy to america by treating gas pipelines the same as oil pipelines, the same as a transmission line. and in concluding, i would just like to say this. that nothing in the bill creates a federal right of imminent domain or supersedes a state's exercise of imminent domain authority. and in concluding i would just like to say that while the

gentleman from california and i are on opposite sides of this issue, and a lot of issues, he has been a real leader in the u.s. congress, he announced earlier that he is not going to be seeking re-election, but the gentleman from california, henry waxman has been a leader in the u.s. congress and recognized so throughout the country and even though he's going to be with us for six or seven more months until the end of the year, i did want to acknowledge that he is recognized as a congressional lead we are great empathy and commitment to his views, although sometimes we disagree with his views. with that i yield back the balance of my time and urge the adoption of 3301. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute

recommended by think committee on energy and commerce printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the rules committee print 113-49. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of house report 113-492. each such amendment shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered by a member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in art b of house report 113-492.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 113-492, offered by mr. pallone of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 636, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone -- pallone, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment ensures that the complete length of cross border projects would be subject to full environmental review under the national environmental plcy act or knee pasm nepa was created to provide transparency so people know what the impact of a project will be on their communities. however, h.r. 3301 will circumvent that transparency, making our lands vulnerable to spills, leaks and other pipeline hazards. this is why i've introduced this amendment which will make certain proper diligence is

given to protect the public's interest. by ensuring a federal nepa review is conducted for the entire length of all cross border projects, we can guarantee all proposals will get the full scope of review necessary to preserve our tremendous natural resources. unfortunately, h.r. 3301 make an end run around knee pasm the bill redefines and significantly changes the scope of nepa's review. while traditionally nepa reviews look at the impact of the entire project, this bill limits the nepa review only to the portion of the project that crosses a border. when we approve a transboundary pipeline or transmission line, we're approving a multimillion dollar structure that will last for decades. they pass through private property and senstive lands and over aquifers. they transport hazardous substances that if spilled or

ignited can cause serious damage. before making decisions about whether to approve such projects, we need to carefully consider their potential impacts on environment and on communities along the route. we should be looking at the project as a whole but that's not what the bill before us does. it redefines the scope of nepa's inquiry to only encompass the step across the border. this is a nonsensical approach. it makes the process of environmental review essentially meaningless. when congress passed -- passed knee park it never intended such a narrow view. it intended nepa to be a tool to understand a project's full environmental impact and consider lower impact alternatives. nepa doesn't impose any rules on projects but forces the government to understand the nature of the projects. we should not be carelessly narrowing loopholes in this law.

when the federal government makes a decision about a major project, it should understand what it's doing. as was seen with keystone x.l., large energy projects often raise safety issues, economic implications and environmental concerns both for the local and global environments. these projects affect communities along their routes. it's simply commonsense that we should understand the broad scope that these impacts -- of these impacts before deciding to approve a project. unfortunately the bill before us today prevent this is review which is why i urge my colleagues to support this important amendment that ensures that the complete length of cross border projects would be subject to a full nepa review. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman -- for what purpose does the -- >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. whitfield: i didn't hear the gentleman's -- the chair's instructions in the beginning

but is it my understanding that we get five minutes in opposition? the chair: the gentleman is is correct. mr. whitfield: i'm going to make a couple of brief comments. while i have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, his legislation would in effect codify the presidential permit not only for natural gas pipelines but also for oil pipelines and transmission lines, but also for natural gas pipelines which are now exempt from the presidential permit. so he's going in the wrong direction and would make it even more difficult and as i've said earlier, nepa would apply any time that federal action is triggered and there are 33 different environmental laws that can trigger federal action, i'm very much opposed to the gentleman's amendment and i would yield the remaining five minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the chair: the gentleman yields,

the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague for yielding to me. as ranking member on the health subcommittee i'm hesitant to rise and o30es your amendment but what the amendment would do, it would ensure the complete length of cross border projects would be subject to review under the national environmental policy act. the bill already guarantees that review at the national boundary, based with the department of energy. existing federal and state laws guarantee an environmental review on complete length of the project. current federal laws that trigger nepa reviews in addition to h.r. 3301 include the clean water act, will generate a nepa review. the clean air act. the endangered species act. rivers and harbors act. fish and wildlife coordination -- coordination for fish and wildlife services. the national wildlife refuge system.

and the wilderness act and the federal land policy and management act. the intent of this bill is not to eliminate any of the nepa reviews in the continental united states. the problem we have is the department of state is making a decision that really ought to be federal agencies and even state governments who would need that, if this bill was adopted, it would actually have, if this amendment was adopted it would require state department or a presidential permit and then all the other agencies, so it would make it impossible. the argument for this bill if you're opposed to keystone, then you're allowing literally 1,000 car train of crude oil to come across the border without any of these reviews. a pipeline is inherently safer and that's why we need to bring that crude oil by pipeline from canada to the gulf coast to where our refining capacity is. the amendment would actually

expand what's under current law and would make it even harder. the goal of the legislation is to have this north american energy independence market and we don't need to throw up more roadblocks to keeping from importing or exporting to canada or importing or exporting to mexico what we already have free trade agreements and i thank my colleague for yielding time, i urge a no vote on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back and the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: this bill provides if it's a cross-bondry, even with canada or mexico, you could not have a nepa review, an environmental review except right around there, right around where the boundary is. if you build a pipeline within the united states within 1,000 miles there would be a review.

to say it goes across the boundary, let's say 1,000 miles, there would be no review even though it crosses streams and aquifers, it would not get a real environmental review that would be required if it were solely domestic. that makes no sense. and i would urge support for the pallone amendment, because it fixes the problem, preserves meaningful environmental reviews. that's what we need for these projects. it corrects that part of the bill, which i think is a glaring, glaring loophole. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back, and the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i yield back -- this is on the pallone amendment, is that correct? the chair: the gentleman is correct. mr. whitfield: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back, and the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i would ask my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- mr. pallone: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in art b of house report 113-492. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i wish to speak in favor of the amendment. i have an amendment at the desk , and under the rule -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 113-492 offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: pursuant to house rule 636, the gentleman from

california, mr. waxman, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, this bill -- the bill's supporters claim it's just about the approval process for cross-border energy projects. they say it's not about approving the x.l. -- keystone x.l. tar sands pipeline, because that's under review now, but in fact that's what this bill really does. if the president determines that the keystone x.l. pipeline is not in the national interest, this bill would allow transcanada to reapply under this new process designed to rubber stamp permits and keystone x.l. would almost certainly be approved under that process. this bill establishes a new permitting process which would ensure rapid approval and not

particularly a clear evaluation. the bill makes it difficult for federal agencies to do anything other than approve the project for two reasons. first, the new permitting process narrows the approval and environmental review and, secondly, the bill establishes this rebuttable presumption of approval, meaning the federal agency must approve the project unless it finds that the cross-border segment of the project is not in the public interest. i think this bill, which i've called the zombie pipeline act, is just for the keystone x.l. pipeline. and they keep on trying to push that thing and not let it go through the process by which it's still being evaluated, so i urge that we close this back door way to ensure keystone x.l. itself is brought up again . i would urge support for this

amendment because this amendment is not a proper way to deal with that particular project. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves, and the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: i'd yield three of my five minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. green: i thank my friend and colleague, chairman whitfield. ranking member waxman's amendment excludes any project with any permit application for the new approval requirements in the bill. the bill does not deal with keystone x.l. the bill shall not apply if an application for a permit for construction, connection or operation or maintenance is pending. that's what the bill does, h.r. 3301. the bill does not apply until july 1, 2016. we're in 2014 now.

keystone x.l.'s been at the state department and white house for at least five years. are they going to wait another two years? now, if they want to wait until july 1, 2016, they would have to refile and start all over. but this bill is nothing to do with the keystone permit. they could stand in line like anyone else after july 1, 2016, and stand in line and get their permit, and i would assume we would have a number of them. but let me first take some time, and i appreciate my colleague, ranking member waxman. we served on the committee. i've been on the energy and commerce committee since 1997. most of the time we agree but we do represent individual districts. i want to say that i appreciate his service. we've worked together on a lot of legislation in our committee and even on the floor, but obviously we have a

disagreement on energy. but, again, that's why i think the amendment is not needed because the bill already prohibits that from applying to any current permit in law. again, thank you for your service. i'll miss you because i enjoy our discussions. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back, and the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i preert all the nice words, -- appreciate all the nice words but let's recognize the amendment. we just heard the statement, this doesn't apply to the keystone x.l. pipeline because it's pending and the bill says it doesn't apply to any project approval pending on date of enactment. but that doesn't permit -- that doesn't exclude them if they're denied from coming right back and getting rubber stamped under the easier process under this bill. so if this is not about the keystone x.l. pipeline, adopt this amendment which says that the keystone x.l. pipeline may not come back as a zombie for

approval later if it doesn't get approved under the existing process. so i'm just trying to keep people honest, and i've still got six months to do that. so don't say goodbye to me yet. but while i'm here, and even after i leave congress, i'll continue to point out when things are said that doesn't add up and it doesn't add up to say this doesn't apply to the keystone x.l. pipeline. it could and in fact it's a back door way to do that, and one might suspect that's the whole purpose of the legislation. so i urge adoption of this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back, and the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i would just point out if we pass 3301, the keystone x.l. pipeline is still caught up in the presidential

permitting process. and if we adopt the waxman amendment, the keystone pipeline would never ever be able to come back with a new application. and since they filed an application in september of 2008, and despite the state department saying that there's no negligible environmental impact for approving it, president obama continues not to approve it. o if after 2016 the keystone pipeline entity wants to submit a new application under the new law they certainly and should have a right to do that, and that's the only reason that we oppose the waxman amendment. and i would urge that the members vote against the waxman amendment, and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the -- mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part b of the house report 113-492. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont seek recognition? mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 113-492 offered by mr. welch of vermont. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 636, the gentleman from investment, mr. welch, and a -- from vermont, mr. welch, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: thank you, mr. chairman.

i rise to speak in favor of the welch-pingree-kuster-shea-porte r amendment, and i want to thank my colleagues from new england for co-sponsoring this amendment with me. h.r. 3301, as we've been aring, exempts literally all modifications of cross-border pipelines without the regard of the impact of the public, health, safety of the environment. my view, that's a terrible idea. some pipeline modifications in fact are truly minor and are unlikely to affect the environment or put public safety at risk. for example, if the pipeline is sold to a new owner, no need for a federal review. so there's a place here for no review. but many modifications could have just as much impact as a brand new pipeline, and there's no justification to exempt from consideration those issues that would be reviewed if it were a new pipeline. the montreal-portland pipeline

reversal is an exact example of a pipeline modification that could have very significant impacts. currently, that pipeline carries light crude from the u.s. to canada, but a proposal in the works is to reverse that pipeline to carry tar sands oil from canada through new hampshire, vermont and maine to ports of casco bay where it will be loaded on the ships for exports. that has raised a lot of concerns in these states. any spill of tar sands crude is a very big deal, far worse than ny other type of oil spill. they're concerned about the reversing of the pipe thrine carry the tar sands which would -- because tar sands oil is the dirtiest in the universe. 42 towns and municipalities in the state of vermont passed resolutions opposing this project. concerned citizens deserve to

have their voice heard. under 3301, the pipeline owners could pleatly skip the process. i oppose this and reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise in mr. whitfield: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: i might say, i have a great deal of respect for the gentleman, mr. welch, on the committee and he does great work in the area of efficiency and other areas relating to energy but i do oppose this amendment and at this point, i'm going to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas for his comments on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is ecognized for two minutes. mr. green: i understand where my colleague on the committee, congressman welch, let me live with you, give you one of our examples you include also ipeline name changes in yours.

i understand your issue is reversing the flow but i have a company that's been waiting years they bought a pipeline coming from canada to the united states. they've waited years for the state department to change their name. what really bothered me, i contacted the state department, the state department said, we're looking at it but we know you're going to build a lateral from north dakota into your u.s. part of the line and we need to evaluate that. the state department has no right to evaluate those pipelines. it's on our property in the united states. they have the cross border. what we're seeing is expansion of state department authority. i agree you have an issue, i'd like to see if we can work with you on it but it shouldn't take three years to change a name because another company bought it. believe me, i think the state department is trying to overreach by saying, we're going to evaluate what you're doing in

the continental united states. we already have federal agencies, federal energy regulatory commission, a host of federal agencies to evaluate that pipeline in our country. state department needs to take care of their business. that's what worries me about your amendment. i ask for a no vote. i'd love to work with you because i think if there is a reverse flow, somebody needs to look at it. i appreciate it. i still request a no vote. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves his time. the gentleman from environment. mr. welch: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from maine, representative pingree. ms. pingree: thank you very much, mr. welch. mr. chairman, i'm proud to sponsor this amendment along with my colleagues from vermont, new hampshire, and my fellow mainer to exempt pipeline reversals from this bill. in my opinion, the way the bill is currently written, it's extremely irresponsible because it basically exempts cross border pipeline projects from

the national environmental policy act and would reduce not only critical federal reviews but also limit the vital public impact -- input that nepa brings. that would raise great concerns@constituents in my district who have a lot they want to say in the public input process. the amendment's scope is limited to pipeline reversal. would -- and would at least make it clear that the underlying bill's waivers do not apply to the so-called portland-montreal pipeline and other pipeline reversals. the portland-montreal pipeline threatens the entire southern maine watershed where 15% of my state gets its drinking water. oversight by nepa is essential for this pipeline and any other and i strongly oppose any attempts to waive nepa or other reviews for this project. that's why i'm here to urge all my colleagues who care about ensuring there's strong oversight and environmental review to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of

my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. . whitfield: i am in opposition to the amendment. first of all, minor is an undefined term that gives little certainty to agencies or industries. one thing we're trying to get away from is the uncertainty of a presidential permit and be treated like natural gas pipelines. in 3301, we're trying to treat all of them exactly the same, transmission lines, oil pipelines, natural gas lines. i would also say that under the gentleman's amendment, any modification such as volume expansion, downstream or upstream interconnections rr adjustments to maintain flow would potentially be required to obtain a presidential permit for the modification even if the original project already has one. and then even operational changes may be subject to a

presidential permit. . d ownership changes would be so for those reasons i respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment and ask the members to oppose it and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from environment is recognized. mr. welch: two things. i want to speak to the leader of our energy committee but also to the proponent of this bill. mr. green. we can have too much regulation or we can have too little regulation and they both have problems. mr. green talks about the hassle he's -- his company is having getting a name shage. that's ridiculous that company should be able to change its name and not get -- have to go through the hassle of a permit. then when the agency hold back and doesn't even give an answer for three years, we've got a problem. i agree with that under my amendment, those issues like a name change would not be at all

subject to the permitting process. on the other hand, we in vermont are concerned about a reversal of flow and having tar sands go through, it's a big deal, 42 towns in my state passed resolutions saying they want to have a say in this and it is known that spills happen, and tar sands spills are a much bigger deal than other kinds. what we have in the legislation is not that working together to find what's the balance or to try to move us toward a balance, there's not unnecessary burdens for a name change and simple things, but on the other hand, we don't abillionish the review process altogether. but this legislation doesn't seek that balance. what this legislation does is in effect abolish the review process. that's a problem. we are going from too much review on a name change, to no review on tar sands coming through vermont, new hampshire, an maine. our legislation, i think, is the only thing that's being considered that in fact offers a

balance. if it's a name change, minor deal, no permit required. if it's significant, then, yes, you're going to have to go through the review. i want to thank the chairman and the speaker and the body for its time and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from vermont. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the -- mr. welch: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from vermont will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted.

accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 3301 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the nion states that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 3301 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 2086, an act to address current emergency shortages of propane and other home heating fuels and to provide greater flexibility and information for governors to address such emergencies in the future.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak on h.r. 6. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a general leave request? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 6. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 636 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 6. the chair appoints the gentleman, mr. harris, to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 6 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide for expedited approval of exportation of natural gas to world trade organization countries and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from colorado, mr. gardner, and the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. chairman. america's natural gas output has been rising since 2006 and the energy information administration expects the increases to continue for decades to come. as a result, we can meet domestic demand for affordable

natural gas while also provusing a surplus for export to our allies around the world. the only thing standing in the way is outdated federal red tape that greatly delays the construction of l.n.g. export facilities. h.r. 6, the bill before us, the domestic prosperity and global freedom act is a targeted bill that cuts red tape and puts the department of energy on a reasonable deadline to act on l.n.g. export applications. i would like to thank my friend and colleague, gene green from texas, for his co-sponsorship of this bipartisan bill and i urge the support of every member in this chamber for h.r. 6. according to the study conducted for the department of energy, natural gas exports would be a net benefit to the american economy. these exports would improve the balance of payments and support up to 45,000 jobs associated with additional natural gas production, as well as the construction and operation of l.n.g. export facilities by

2018. needless to say, these new jobs couldn't come at a better time for our economy. remember the concerns many of us had over the u.s. economy hemorrhaging billions of dollars every every year going overseas to pay for energy imports? for natural gas, the roles can be reversed and we could be the ones selling energy on the global market and bringing in billions of dollars in job-sustaining revenues. natural gas exports are a winning policy but the geopolitical aspects have been ignored for too long. last october the committee on energy and commerce held a forum that included ambassadors and other officials representing 11 u.s. allies, all of whom strongly urged us to enter the global l.n.g. market place. since then, several other allies have stepped in with the same request. this includes our friends in eastern europe who are unfortunate enough to be reliant

on russia for natural gas. not only do they face unfair pricing but political pressure as a result of their dependence on russia. they believe the very passage of this legislation would signal that we are serious about l.n.g. exports would immediately reduce russia's negotiating leverage even before the first molecule of l.n.g. shipment goes out. h.r. 6 will start doing good the very day it's enacted. i should note that our efforts on l.n.g. exports began before the current crisis in ukraine but russia's actions over the last several months demonstrate the importance of this bill and russia's decision to cut off supplies to ukraine further underscore the need for america to provide europe, exclude me, an alternative supply of natural gas. indeed, we can effectively push back against russia's aggression and help our friends without ever putting any troop in harm's way. beyond europe, we can also strengthen our economic ties with allies in asia who would rather buy their energy from us than less reliable middle eastern suppliers.

we can also assist nations in aheaving their environmental goals by offering the option of clean-burning natural gas and we can help many countries by providing them with an energy source cheaper than the choices available to them now. the economic benefits aloan, or the yo political benefits aloan make exports a worthwhile policy but taken together they make it a no brainer. unfortunately, the decades-long approval process is acting as an impediment. projects have languished at d.o.e. for years on end. while d.o.e. announced some changes to the process, they're still under no deadline to theafpblgt amendment i'm offering with mr. green changes that. it provides that the once the extensive environmental review conducted by the federal energy regulatory commission is complete for a project, the department of energy has a 30-day deadline to issue a final decision on the application pending before the agency. . it's a sensible and workable

solution. it's an answer to a call from our you a lies for energy security -- allies for energy security. it's time for us to help our friend as i broad and create jobs here at home and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 6 and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, -- mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i was going to talk about this bill and i will, but i really want to talk about the inflation in the naming of these bills. this is a bill to allow a faster process for exporting natural gas to other countries. so what is it called? the domestic prosperity and global freedom act. what do you follow after that? peace and prosperity in our time? whatever that may in fact

involve. so i just think that this bill its title.d in it's also overrated in what it does. there are 17 or 18 free trade countries. and they can have the export of . tural gas to them right away they're free trade countries that have an agreement with us. so there's no problem in getting the approval for them but the question is, are we going to approve export of natural gas to nonfree trade countries? well, the premise of this bill is that we're not doing enough to export natural gas to them or anyone else, i guess. because congressman gardner's bill would change the approval process for liquefied natural gas exports, presumably because the department of energy is moving too slowly.

because they can approve an application now for export, anywhere around the world. in fact, doe has moved -- d.o.e. has moved quite properly it seems to me to authorize these l.n.g. exports. they've already approved seven export proposals and they're continuing to evaluate additional applications. what these approvals that we've already granted, have granted, the u.s. is poised to transform into the world's second largest exporter of l.n.g. in the world just behind qatar. and if they approve one more application, we would go from exporting no l.n.g. today to being the largest exporter in the world in just a few years. so why don't we -- why do we need this legislation? certainly not to get domestic prosperity and global freedom.

because this bill doesn't accomplish either goal. currently the department of energy goes through a process and they perform a public when st determination reviewing export applications so they can carefully consider the affect of l.n.g. exports on natural gas prices here and the impact of higher prices here, on american consumers. and these manufacturers that are benefiting from the lower price that they have seen for l.n.g. here. so the public interest determination provides d.o.e. an opportunity to examine a number of factors. energy security, geopolitical and environmental considerations. well, if we would have this bill adopted, it would short circuit this established review process for pending and future l.n.g. export applications.

the bill establishes a new deadline for d.o.e. to decide on applications within 90 days of the close of the public comment period or enactment of the bill, which ever comes later. well, that's a deadline they've established. so they're forcing the d.o.e. to act, but if d.o.e. looks at an application and they don't feel that they're ready to make a decision in that period of time, they're more likely than not to just turn it down. that doesn't seem to be a worthwhile goal, if we want to have more export of l.n.g. this provision would require d.o.e. simultaneously to review and make a decision on all the pending applications within 90 days. it's not realistic, it certainly isn't responsible. with few exceptions, environmental reviews haven't been completed by federal energy regulatory commissions

for any of these applications. so the deadline would force d.o.e. to rush its review of each application, make its final decision, without a final environmental review. the other thing i want to comment on is, all those ambassadors that told us they want this bill, because of the hold that russia has over them, they may not even benefit if this bill were adopted. because they're not free trade countries. so, there has to be an approval of an export for l.n.g. to a nonfree trade country. but there's not an approval through the department of energy to any particular country, it's simple -- it simply approves the request of a company here to export the l.n.g. now, ound our capitalist system

-- now, under our capitalist system, a business usually seeks the highest reward for its investment. and the export of l.n.g. to a nonfree trade country is going to be better rewarded in asia than it will be in the ukraine or in eastern europe where they're so concerned, and rightfully so, about what russia's going to do. so it may not even help those countries, as so many of these mbassadors hope it will. i would say in this bill is not going to really get us to export l.n.g. any faster, nothing in the bill affects the middle and regulatory commissions permitting of the actual l.n.g. export terminals. rushing the d.o.e. review is not going to speed up the construction of these projects. we need the construction of the

infrastructure for the export of natural gas. and then the last thing i want o say is, there are some controversies about exporting l.n.g. not exporting at all, but opening up to export in a process where the export will be wide open. a lot of manufacturers in this country are worried that if we are exporting our l.n.g., that's going to raise the price of natural gas here at home. well, of course it will. it will go to a lower price of l.n.g. here at home to eventually a world price, if it can be freelyy exported around -- freely exported around the way we have for oil. and if that happens they're afraid that this boom we've seen in manufacturing in the

united states may be curtailed. so it's not without controversy that people are looking at this legislation. in other words, mr. chairman and my colleagues, if you lose your job because the price of natural gas goes up and you are working for a manufacturer that's benefiting from a lower price for natural gas here in the united states, they're not going to look at this as a bill that leads to domestic prosperity and global freedom. s the authors of this bill would have us believe. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. chairman. i would just point out that nothing in this bill changes the requirements. i also share your frustration with the titles, the bill titles. imagine our consternation over the affordable care act.

mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to applaud the gentleman from colorado for bringing this bill to the floor. i wholeheartedly support h.r. 6 for a number of reasons. i also want to address some of the issues that the gentleman from the other side raised. mr. boustany: first of all, let's consider, international trade is the key to growth. it's the key to job creation, it's the key to reducing our deficits and it's important geopolitically for the united states. and because of this great advance in technology, with hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, we now have unprecedented levels, supply of gas that we can use domestically for manufacturing and we are seeing a domestic manufacturing renaissance. but secondly, the amount of gas that we will export from this country for a number of reasons will not cause significant price spikes. n fact, it will promote more

drilling. which is what we need to do. we need to take care of our own energy security here and we can provide energy security for our partners, our trading partners around the world. this is why we need to move forward on this. secondly, it's clear over the last two years the u.s. department of energy has raise ed its long-term forecast by nearly 40%. with price expectations having declined 15% over the same period. so the point that the gentleman makes about price spikes because of l.n.g. exports is really, really unfounded. unfounded point. secondly, l.n.g. exports could contribute up to 450,000 jobs between the years 2016 and 2035. and add $73.6 billion annually to our g.d.p. my home state louisiana in fact the third congressional district, my district, is a leading area in this whole effort.

we have currently the first two department of energy and ferca-approved facilities that are undergoing construction today. the first one will actually see its exports probably in 2015, early 2016, the others will follow. but we currently have eight, eight that are waiting and have been waiting over a year. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized. mr. boustany: eight facilities waiting for over a year for the approval from the department of energy and that's before they go through the expensive ferc process. that's why we need this legislation. to get the department of energy to move forward on this. so that we don't hold up something that's going to help us grow our economy, create jobs and be very important geopolitically. trade not only acts as a catalyst for creating jobs, it reduces deficits, promotes american goods and services internationally, and energy should be no different. that's why we need to move forward, we have a unique opportunity. let's embrace it now and let's do the right thing for our country. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i want to thank the gentleman from louisiana. i respect him greatly and he made an argument. i don't fully agree with his argument but that's the purpose of the debate, to discuss ideas and air our point of view. but the author of this legislation i guess couldn't help himself because he said, imagine the consternation when they found that the affordable care act was named the affordable care act. there are millions of people around the country for the first time who are able to buy insurance that's affordable. don't believe if this bill passed that it will lead to domestic prosperity and global freedom. with all due respect to those who have a different point of view. what gall to say that this

bill, which is controversial and many americans oppose because they feel it will hurt their prosperity here at home or our national security here at home, would think that an appropriate name is to say this bill is the domestic, the prosperity and global freedom act. now that i've got that off my chest, mr. chairman, i want to yield five minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcnerney: i'm going to respond to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: point of order, mr. chairman. don't we have the time? the chair: the gentleman from california controls the time. mr. waxman: i've yielded five minutes. mr. boustany: i was just asking if the gentleman would yield for a quick response. mr. waxman: i'm sorry. i'm yielding to mr. mcamericany. you can respond on your time -- mcnerney. you can respond on your time. mr. mcnerney: thank you, mr.

chairman, and thank you, mr. speaker. i don't think this bill is needed. l.n.g. per mets -- permits are being issued faster than they can be built. this bill establishes a rigid deadline for d.o.e. to complete its public interest reviews of l.n.g. export applications, that approach raises significant concerns and i'd like to talk about two of the concerns. climate change and economics. now -- mr. waxman: will you yield to me? you don't think the bill's needed. does that mean you're against domestic prosperity and global freedom? mr. mcnerney: i don't think that's what that means. mr. waxman: ok, i want to clarify that. i yield back. mr. mcnerney: recently, they released the report on the state of climate science. the world's leading climate scientists confirmed that climate change is already happening on all the content -- continents and across the oceans and will get worse if we don't act.

the impoosks runaway climate change will be severe, redeuced crop yields, more heat waves and diseases, decreased water availability and more extreme weather events. this means we need to scrutinize energy infrastructure decisions we make today because of their impacts on climate change in the future. every decision to build a new l.n.g. export terminal has climate implications. we need to understand and weigh on those effects. otherwise we risk locking in infrastructure that will produce carbon for decades to come or create stranded assets that must be shut down before they have paid for themselves. natural gas combustion for electricity does emit carbon pollution. it does emit less carbon pollution than coal. but natural gs production does result in gas escaping and natural gas is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. we need to consider the effect

of carbon emissions in the united states. in addition, licky the -- lick we fiing natural gas and shipping it overseas is an energy process that will result in significant carbon emissions. for example, the direct emissions from the process will represent 2% of the entire state of louisiana's emissions. the energy information administration's modeling shows that l.n.g. exports would increase natural gas domestic production in the united states, of course that's obvious, this could increase emissions of methane, as i mentioned a potent greenhouse gas, unless we take ery severe measures to control pollution at the wellhead and in a carbon constrained world we need to understand all these impacts and how they compare to emission impacts atpwhrosmede d.o.e. has take an first step to begin looking at these issues but has not completed a rigorous study of the effects of the

different levels of l.n.g. exports on carbon emissions. we need to make sure we understand the effects of climate change on major energy infrastructure investments that will last for decades. my second concern is economics. shipping natural gas overseas will raise domestic natural gas prices. that's the law of supply and demand unless that law is no longer valid. manufacturing is seing a domestic renaissance in this country because of natural gas prices being lower. this is domestic manufacturing. we want to make things in america. we want to make it in america, we want to continue to see that renaissance, we want to see manufacturing increased throughout the country and throughout the states and so therefore i oppose the bill and i would yield -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california

reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. gardner: i would point out that our colleagues in the senate have introduced similar legislation, titled the freedom from exploration act and point out too that when it comes to domestic prosperity, the fact that this could create 45,000 job opportunities, increasing the employment in energy to three million people by 2020, that's prosperity and freedom, including comments by hungary's ambassador at large for energy security, dr. nita orbin who testified that this legislation sends a clear signal that the global gas market is changing, last the prospect of much greater supply from other parts of the world. that's world security, freedom, prosperity, and i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio who has been a true leader on the issue of l.n.g. exports. the chair: the gentleman is ecognized for two minutes.

>> i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. lifting self-imposed restrictions on natural gas exports is a win-win for the american people. it will bolster our strategic partnerships. many foreign leaders and officials have expressed to me the need for energy diversify case and its importance to strengthen our strategic partnerships. mr. turner: we cooperate with our allies on a variety of issues. energy security must also be a component. america's emerging role as an energy producer has the potential to enhance our security relationships and influence the global marketplace. as we have seen in the ukraine, russia won't hesitate to use its resources to expand its sphere of influence. last week, russia's state-owned monopoly cut off natural gas supplies to the ukraine.

in the asian pacific, japan is a critical security partner as we counter threats by countries like north korea. already the world's largest importer of natural gas, japan and pendent on north korea other countries for their imparts -- imports. i increasing natural gas exports will help diversify world natural gas supplies and create a more competitive, transparent, and diversified global natural gas marketplace. in fact, u.s. natural gas production has already influenced global markets. natural gas previously destined for the united states but no longer needed as a result of increased production was diverted to other markets. this increased supply has made the global natural gas market more competitive, helped to put more pressure on contracts indexed to the price of oil.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. turner: thank you, mr. chairman. president obama's secretary of state kerry have welcomed increased exports to cement our strategic alliances. increasing supply of natural gas in the global marketplace will provide greater choice and thus increase leverage to negotiate prices. u.s. natural gas exports will create jobs here at home and will help foster a more competitive natural gas market. i urge passage of h.r. of and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. -- the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: 7% of the american people approve of the united states congress and one of the reasons for that low approval rating is that we have overpromised and underperformed what they expect of us.

if anybody would think that this bill in and of itself deserves to be called the domestic prosperity and global freedom act, i think they lose credibility with the american people and there's not much more credibility to lose when they only support us at a rate of 7%. at this time i want to yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. green, for whom i have an enormous am of affection even though today we've had two bills where we've disagreed, but he doesn't overpromise. he just states his views, supports what he believes in, and sometimes convinces me but is not doing a good job today. i yield him five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognize for five minutes. mr. green: i thank the ranking member for yielding to me. i have to admit, domestic prosperity and global freedom act, it's a bipartisan problem we have in this chamber. i rise as a co-sponsor in

support of h.r. 6. h.r. 6 represents a bipartisan effort to legislate and i want to thank my colleague from colorado, congressman gardner, for working with me. i wasn't an original co-sponsor but through our committee processed we worked it out. we achieved bipartisan support in committee because we were working together. i think that's what the american people want congress to do. it's important to recognize that there are more than 30 export permits to export l.n.g. these permits represent more than 35 billion cubic feet a day in l.n.g. exports. currently the department of energy conditionally approves six of them but only one project has received final approve through d.o.e. and through the federal energy regulatory commission. d.o.e. has an important role in the export to make sure that we don't increase our natural gas prices to where they're in the affordable to our country. we're in an energy renaissance

because of the success of natural gas, fracking, directional drilling in our country and we're producing more natural gas than we can use, whether it be for electricity production or from our chemical industry. i represent a huge chemical complex in east harris county and this is a renaissance in the expansion of those chemical industries and it's increasing jobs, increasing exports because a lot of those chemicals we're producing from our u.s. natural gas will be exported so someone else will pay for those jobs in our district in east harris county. the department of energy has a role in this. the problem we have is that the department of energy is taking so long to approve these permits. the d.o.e. really just needs to look at if it's in our national interest and they include all these things under it, and that's ok. but let me give you an example

new york texas and in north dakota, we're flaring natural gas right now because we don't have customers in our country and we don't have a way to export it. it's bad for the environment. it's bad for the people who own those royalties because they're not getting paid for them and it's just ter to believe see something we could sell to someone else not be utilized. that's why i support this bill. i want -- we want to find that sweet spot, so to speak, on where we can export what we're not using. those of you who are familiar with texas, we hold in reverence our blue bell ice cream. in their commercials, if you're there, they say, we eat all we can and sell the rest. that's what i want to do with natural gas. i want to use all we can but sell the rest we can't use to help our balance of trade. it will help our allies who need it. it will also keep our people working both in the oil patch and the gas patch. but -- so -- my colleague states

that one more approval would make us the largest l.n.g. exporter in the world but none of these projects have been constructed. only one has been approved all the all the way. no more than a handful of these projects will be constructed to export l.n.g. it's important we clarify the l.n.g. permitting process before we discuss h.r. 6. they are two completely separate processes. first they must submit an application to export. if the project to sent l.n.g. to a country with which the u.s. has a free trade agreement, it's automatly imaprove the port of brownsville got their application approved in 30 days. if the project sends l.n.g. to a country without a free trade agreet, the d.o.e. must issue a permit based on public interest. far project to actually export l.n.g. in either case, the applicant must receive the federal energy regulatory

permit. it reviews the impact of the actual l.n.g. facility. it take 12s to 18 ms. presidents and costs approximately $100 million. the issue of h.r. 6 seeks to deal with nonf.t.a. permits through the department of energy. the department of energy currently has 25 permits awaiting a decision. the department of energy held most of these permits for more than three years. even though the d.o.e. recognizes this is a huge problem and is changing the approval processism support the d.o.e.'s changes. but unfortunately they prevent it from providing certainty. h.r. 6 would place a timeline on a d.o. tomplete issue a decision. again, remember, the d.o.e. is going to have 12 to 18 months to know that permit because it's going tout regulatory process already. we need to make sure that the environmental review process is protected and that's what ferc does. we also need to make sure that the d.o.e. makes those decisions

timely so they can get those permits issues and built. i ask my colleagues to support h.r. 6 and provide certainty to the market. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. gardner: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from west virginia, mrs. capito. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capito: i would like to thank the gentleman from colorado for recognizing me and for his leadership on the domestic prosperity and global freedom act this would require the d.o.e. to act quickly in considering applications to export liquefied natural gas. new technologies have unlocked vast resources of natural gatt a-- natural gas across the country. our natural gas production will increase 60% over the next few years. if you want to see what this looks like, come to northern virginia or southwest p.a.

more production means more west virginia jobs. the mar se ulous shale production -- the marcellus shale production means more jobs, good paying jobs, here at home. by 2025, l.n.g. exports are expected to create 8,600 west billion jobs and put $1 in state coffers. today's legislation will make a real positive difference for working families and communs in my state and states across the nation. this bill would allow us to import jobs and economic opportunity while we export both energy and physical security to our friends and allies. more than a third of the natural gas consumed in europe comes from russia and i'm sure our allies would rather be buying natural gas from the united states. passing this bill will create job in west virginia and across the country, grow our nation's economy and strengthen our relationships with our allies. i encourage my colleagues to

vote for this important bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves, the gentleman from california is recognized. . . >> i ask unanimous concept to control the time until the ranking -- -- consent to control the time until the ranking member returns. he's returning now. i would like to yield two minutes to my colleague from texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. i want to thank ranking member henry waxman for yielding time to me. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 6, the domestic prosperity and global freedom act. i am a co-sponsor of this bipartisan legislation that will help to increase u.s. liquid natural gas exports and help boost our economy. mr. speaker, in my 15th congressional district in texas , oil and natural gas extraction from the shale has

transformed this region, bringing thousands of new jobs and growing wealth to many rural communities in south texas. mr. hinojosa: the university of texas showed that this has provided a $61 billion impact o texas and supported over 116,000 new jobs. more importantly, the boom in natural -- in american natural gas production has drastically changed our many counties' energy future. the united states is now the number one natural gas producing nation until the world. the u.s.a. has more -- in the world. the u.s.a. has more than enough natural gas to meet its domestic needs while also exporting to foreign countriesality a huge -- at a huge -- countries at a huge benefit to the united states economy. unfortunately the existing application process at the department of energy has made it burdensome for companies to export liquefied natural gas to

non-f.d.a. countries. this bill will address that problem. mr. speaker, this is a truly bipartisan effort that will resolve a longstanding issue within our administration on exports of natural gas. our bill, h.r. 6, will cut the red tape and move to quickly approve all pending liquid and gas applications at the department of energy for our w.t.o. allies and provide future applicants with a much more reasonable process. i want to thank representative cory gardner and tim ryan for introducing this important legislation and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes. thank you, mr. speaker, with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from indiana, ms. brooks. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mrs. brooks: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the

global prosperity and freedom act. this bill will expedite exports of liquefied natural gas and l.n.g. to our allies abroad by cutting red tape. as a nation, it has the potential to revitalize our economy, allow us to become energy independent and strategically advance our end yoferseseas. i know many hoosiers back home might be asking themselves, how does this help me? after all, we have limited natural gas wells and processing plants in indiana. let me state clearly, the answer is yes, it will help them. the bill would be an economic boone to the hoosier economy, as the nation's leading manufacturing state indiana contributes to the l.n.g. business heavily by making and manufacturing the equipment that makes the gas extraction possible. the natural gas and oil industry has already created

136,000 jobs in indiana and it makes up over 4.1% of our entire labor income. the future for indiana looks even brighter when the -- with the expansion of l.n.g. exports. it's estimated that indiana's economy would grow by 2.-- $2.2 billion and create new jobs. by simply allowing shipments of gas to our trusted allies. just last week i received a letter from the c.e.o. of the ports of indiana urging passage of this legislation. he supported passage because of the significant competitive advantage it will give our state in terms of our geography and infrastructure that will allow indiana to further capitalize on l.n.g. exports. now is the time to allow american entrepreneurship, increase domestic energy production and fuel job creation. but unfortunately the administration has refused time and time again to get out of the way of this entrepreneurship. the administration refuses to

approving licenses for l.n.g. exports and as i speak now, there are 24 pends applications -- mr. gardner: i yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. brooks: thank you. 24 pending applications awaiting action from the department of energy. one has been waiting 917 days and counting. mr. speaker, it's time to unleash the power of america's abundant natural resource, to capitalize on our ingenuity and create thousands of good-paying jobs in my home state of indiana and across the nation. thank you, i urge passage and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i am pleased at this time to yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. tonko: thank you and thank the gentleman for his yielding. and thank him for his work as ranking member on the energy and commerce committee. mr. speaker, with h.r. 6, we are embarking on a policy that will lock us into higher and

more volatile natural gas prices and that will erode a key advantage we have for domestic manufacturing. that being low natural gas prices. natural gas is used widely throughout our economy. it is indeed a valuable commodity and we should be setting policy to ensure that we use it efficiently and effectively. l.n.g. terminals are expensive to build and require a lot of energy to operate. the contract signed by exporters commit them to exporting l.n.g. for anywhere from 10 years to 20 years. we already had a small taste of what happens if there is an unexpected event that increases domestic demand when ready supplies are low and exports have increased. at a time when we are producing record amounts of propane, we had some of the worst shortages and price spikes we've seen in years. it was not entirely due tokes port increases, but it was -- due to export increases but it was definitely a factor. many of our communities are paying the environmental cost of this natural gas boom. this bill is now going to deny

them the benefits associated with sacrifices. there are very real concerns that this legislation would harm economic growth, job creation and american manufacturing. this bill will not allow adequate consideration of the public interest. including impacts on the united states' consumers and manufacturers before granting approval of natural gas exports to countries with which we do not have a free trade agreement. in fact, because we do not have free trade agreements with a number of countries, exports of l.n.g. to them do not require any public interest analysis. d.o.e. has approved billions of cubic feet to be exported to nations with whom we have a free trade agreement and to others as well. we are in the midst of a manufacturing renaissance. due in part to an abundance of affordable, domestic natural gas. we have seen 12 consecutive months of growth in the manufacturing sector. and a growing trend of

reshoring of jobs back to the united states. why would we want to turn that trend around? experts or excuse me, exports on the scale that this legislation would enable will raise domestic natural gas and electricity prices for every american and undermine our manufacturing competitiveness. the united states natural gas prices are less than 1/2 of europe and 1/3 less than places like japan and south korea. the integration of the united states and asia gas markets would lead to increases in prices for consumers and businesses, undoing the economic conditions that sled to the recent growth of -- that have led to the recent growth of american manufacturing. with natural gas is the single largest input. energy is consumed in the industrial sector for a wide range of purposes. from processing to heating, cooling and as feed stocks to

produce nonenergy products. the chemicals, palp and paper, iron and steel, refining and nonmetallic minerals industries account for about 1/2 of all energy used in this sector. these industries alone represent millions, millions of american jobs. that is why i am so concerned that the energy information administration, the e.i.a., found that increased natural gas exports will, and i quote, lead to increased natural gas prices and larger export levels lead to larger domestic price increases, closed quote. i.e.a. -- e.i.a. looked specifically at the impact of these price increases to united states manufacturers and found that a high level of l.n.g. exports could increase natural s costs between 5% and 27% annually. the amendment i offered to the rules committee, which was not made in order, would have prevented section 2 of this bill from taking effect, until

there would be a determination that l.n.g. exports would not adversely impact the competitiveness of the united states manufacturing community. american employees are struggling to compete in a global economy, especially the jobs in the manufacturing sector. domestic informs are competing with countries that have low wages, limited environmental and worker protections and manipulated currencies. low-priced, abundant natural gas is a competitive advantage for domestic manufacturers. let's not give that up. this congress has an obligation to prevent the loss of american manufacturing jobs. revitalization of the american manufacturing industry and bringing back quality jobs from overseas should be the cornerstone of our efforts in washington to help the private sector thrive and to put our people back to work. this bill is only good for -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. tonko: increased benefits

will be coming at everyone else's expense. with that i urge defeat of this bill. i yield back. the chair: thank you. the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california controls another 3 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from colorado has 15 minutes. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. gardner: i thank the chairman. at this time i would like to yield three minutes to the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, mr. upton. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. upton: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, the energy and commerce committee has been tackling issue the of l.n.g. exports for quite some time now. and what began as a solid case in favor of these exports has only grown stronger. i support this bill, the domestic prosperity and global freedom act, and i applaud in particular the sponsor, cory gardner, for his efforts on this important bipartisan bill. last october we held a forum that consisted of nearly a dozen representatives of foreign governments as well as the commonwealth of puerto rico, all of whom expressed

their strong interest in buying l.n.g. from the u.s. three of them, hungary, the czechoslovakia and lithuania, our eastern european allies that are currently dependent on russia for natural gas, they described in great detail how russia wields natural gas as a weapon against them, threatening to raise prices or even cutting off supplies as a means of exerting political pressure. so we need to respond and we've seen warnings play out with the ongoing crisis today in the ukraine. and if putin is not deterred, he'll likely use the same tactics on other countries in years ahead. russia's aggression is real. and american l.n.g. can provide a much-needed life line away from putin's grip as an alternative supply source. the energy information administration's estimated reserves of natural gas continue to be revised upward,