so uncertain that conventional and renewable energy producers are avoiding federal lands in favor of state and private lands. that is where permits are approved in a timely fashion. -- fashion, are not subject to burdensome and obstructionist lawsuits, and projects can move forward in a stable environment. in my home state of colorado, a permit for an energy project can be approved in 27 days. for state land projects. for project on federal lands in colorado, the obama administration takes nearly a year to approve the same permit. this delay in approvals not only delays energy production, it delays job creation, revenues to state and local governments. energy producers should not have to choose between whether to produce energy on federal versus state land just because of permit timelines, lawsuits, and regulations.

this injects much-needed certainty into the energy process. it will ensure timely permit approvals, allow bureau of land management field offices to have the resources they need for energy permits, open up offshore areas for energy production and ensures that our nation has a plan for our future energy needs. i urge my colleagues to join me in strong support of this critical legislation. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back. the gentleman from california has 47 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington has 44 minutes remaining. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for four minutes. mr. moran: i thank my very good friend and our leader from california for yielding me the time. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill.

so, this is the last day we're in session until after the elections. but rather than consider substantive legislation today or really at any point in this session that would have extended long-term unemployment benefits or simplified the tax code or reform our immigration system our extend expiring tax provisions or lower foreign trade barriers with new trade authority or invest in our nation's deteriorating public infrastructure, we're going home. mr. chairman, mr. speaker, the list goes on and on what have we could and should be doing. but we are wasting what limited floor time remains debating a exrillation of bad -- exillation of bad antienvironmental proposals that this chamber has already passed.

these bills will not be considered by the senate and they're billions -- bills that the president has already expressed his intention of vetoing if they were to get through the senate. it's disappointing but it is not surprising. with the vote on this bill this chamber will have voted 218 times just this session to weaken existing laws that protect our health and our environment. 58 times this session we voted to block action on climate change. 43 times to weaken the clean air act. and 75 times to weaken the clean water act. mr. speaker, more oil is being produced now during the obama administration than at any point in the previous 25 years. our dependence on foreign sources of oil is at a record low. gasoline prices are actually

stabilizing or in decline in many parts of the country. but with this bill we will be waiving environment reviews and advancing more drilling in areas that pose potential harm to the environment and to other american jobs and industries. such as the tourist industry, the fishing industry and many other industries that don't seem to be given equal weight but are certainly equally or more important than the industries that we're trying, gainst all odds, to protect. mr. speaker, climate is warming. the only place where a majority of the american people are in denial is here in this chamber. i've seen a poll that shows that 53% of all self-identified epublicans under the age of 34

think politicians who deny climate change are either, and i'm quoting here, obviously these would not be my worded, but i'm quoting, -- words, but i'm quoting, either ignorant, out of touch or crazy, end quotes. so i'll let the majority of young republicans have the last word, mr. speaker. but the point is, i oppose this measure and i urge my colleagues to do so as well by voting no. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. marino: thank you. mr. speaker, h.r. 2 is a practical bill that would lower costs for energy, create over a million long-term jobs, improve our energy security and substantially reduce red tape. this is exactly the type of bipartisan legislation congress should be passing to revitalize

our economy and create jobs. according to an april, 2014, report issued by the u.s. government accountability office, the average wait time for an environmental impact study in 2012 was running 4.6 years. this is the highest average since 1997 and includes projects with wait times of 10 to 20 years. the world bank and international finance corporations recent ease of doing business index embarrassingly ranked the u.s. 34th in the world in the category of dealing with construction permits. this is no longer a political game. this is costing the united states real dollars and good paying jobs. today the environmental protection agency and other regulatory bodies are filing numerous claims to deny and delay companies from receiving permits for as long as 10 to 15 years, just to break ground. at a time when our economy is

lagging and job creation is moving at a very slow pace, this is an outrage. the rapid act would set hard deadlines for agencies to approve or deny permits, the rapid act would also crackdown on prolonged lawsuits, creating a window of 180 days for any claim challenging a permit decision. this bill would also substantially streamline the process by empowering lead agencies to manage environmental reviews efficiently from start to finish and to avoid waist and duplication of efforts among the bureaucrat agencies. mr. speaker, simply because the leader of the democrats said it, harry reid, will not allow over 260 bills to go to the floor, doesn't mean that we should continue -- that we should refrain from continuing to do our job here. my constituents back home deserve this legislation and america needs this legislation and we'll continue to fight on a daily basis to make sure that we improve the economy and

create jobs. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to my colleague and good friend from california, mrs. capps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague for yielding and, mr. speaker, here we go again. h.r. 2 is yet another example of the majority's backward energy policy which doubles down on dirty fossil fuels instead of investing in a clean energy future. i strongly oppose it. while fossil fuels will undoubtedly be a significant part of our energy mix for years to come, they are really only one piece of a very large energy puzzle. so rather than focusing on dead-end, short-sighted policies like these, we should be considering comprehensive energy legislation that looks at the big picture.

we should be investing in cutting-edge research, high-tech innovation, and new, clean energy technologies. we should be increasing energy efficiency, modernizing the electric grid. we should be promoting sustainable energy and we should be taking action to reduce toxic greenhouse gas emissions and finally embrace the overwhelming science of climate change. not only does h.r. 2 do nothing to address the serious environmental problems we face, it also creates new ones. h.r. 2 overrides the expressed will of voters in my congressional district and many other communities throughout the nation by wrecklessly expanding offshore oiling -- drilling. we've seen time and time again the devastating environmental and economic threats posed by offshore oil drilling. and that's why voters in my congressional district and california have repeatedly rejected new offshore drilling.

yet this bill ignores these wishes and explicitly requires new oil drilling off the central coast of california and in other areas. i find it ironic that the same majority that decries an overreaching federal government seems to have no qualms about forcing new drilling upon local populations against their expressed wishes. i have submitted several amendments to the rules committee to address this in this legislation and other problems with this bill, but none of them were made in order. in fact, the majority has prohibited consideration of any and all amendments, no debate, no vote. and if these weren't enough reasons to oppose h.r. 2, the bill is also completely unnecessary. because the house has already passed every single provision included in this bill. h.r. 2 is nothing more than 13 previously passed bills stapled together with a new bill number on the top. even worse, this is the third

time this congress and the fifth time in four years that we're voting on the exact same offshore drilling expansion legislation. stapling old bills together doesn't make this a new idea. one would think that after nearly four years in control of this house, the majority would have come up with some new ideas by now. but sadly they just found a bigger staple machine. h.r. 2 is simply a political gimmick and a waste of taxpayer time and money. this is no way to legislate. mr. speaker, the american people expect better from us. they expect us to find common ground and work together across party lines to solve our nation's problems and there's certainly no shortage of problems we could be working on right now. strengthening our economy, raising the minimum wage, passing comprehensive immigration reform, making college more affordable, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, the list does

not even -- and that list does not even include the multitude of energy challenges that this bill completely ignores. this is what the american people are calling for. they're calling on congress to stop the political gimmicks. they're calling on us to help create middle class jobs to support working families and they're calling on us to get to work and build a more prosperous and sustainable energy future for our nation. h.r. 2 accomplishes none of these things. this bill is simply harmful energy policy and an embarrassing waste of time. i urge my colleagues to reject this bill and join us in working toward a clean, more sustainable energy future for the american people. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, dr. cassidy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes.

mr. cassidy: thank you. i thank my colleague from nebraska, mr. terry, chairman upton and chairman hastings, for incorporating important provisions that i have worked on in this bill, specifically provisions that would prevent or rollback onerous e.p.a. regulations and provisions that would greatly increase revenue sharing among golf state, adding billions to louisiana's coastal restoration effort to build hurricane protection, to protect not just our state but energy infrastructure. now, we've passed these bills before, sometimes three times before. and there are over 40 jobs bills this chamber has passed that have gone nowhere in the senate. the bill sat on majority reid's desk. senator reid and his colleagues like to speak of helping the middle class, but when it comes to jobs bills, they talk and we act. now, louisiana and louisiana's workers are greatly benefiting from america's energy renaissance. there are over 66 industrial

projects worth some $90 billion that will break ground the next five years in louisiana, creating tens of thousands of new jobs for working americans. the only thing that can stop these jobs is federal regulation. for example, some proposed e.p.a. rules would destroy 117,000 jobs in the -- in louisiana alone. sometimes i think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so busy saving the earth they will sacrifice the american family. my, my, i think we save the earth by first saving the family. we should be rolling out the red carpet for these jobs, not the red tape. but already the red tape has made these jobs more difficult and life more difficult for these families. we've seen the price of utilities, gasoline, groceries and of course health insurance increase under president obama's administration. hardworking families are struggling. and they pray for better jobs with better benefits.

fortunately the energy industry is creating these jobs. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. cassidy: thank you. these jobs are at risk from president obama blocking a bill to construct a pipeline infrastructure or blocks exploreation off the continental shelf or places hurdles in front of liquefied natural gas. when the e.p.p.a. proposes job kill -- e.p.a. proposes job killing regulations, drive jobs to other countries. i urge the senate to pass the dozens of job producing bills this house has passed and that have stalled at the majority leader's desk for months, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, at this time i yield five minutes to my good colleague from the state of new york, mr. tonko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. tonko: the bill before us today is another exercise that explains why the public has such a low opinion of congress.

we have considered this package of bills before. the senate will not take it up. the president and administration would not approve it. we are wasting valuable time on our last day in session before the lame duck period. this bill delivers more benefits to big fossil fuel and mining interests. it would allow them to extract fossil fuels and minerals from our coastlines and public lands with no serious consideration of public health, the environment or of the many other business interests that rely on a clean, healthy environment to support their continued success. our nation has real challenges. we need faster, broader job growth in all regions of our country and in all sectors of our economy. we need a national energy policy that provides more energy security through increased energy efficiency and expanded use of renewable energy resources. we need an energy policy that

recognizes and deals with the challenges of climate change. we need a thoughtful path forward that enables a transition to the energy sector of the future that brings workers and communities into this new model productively and profitably. we need to invest in our transportation and water infrastructure, infrastructure that is in need of repair, in need of rebuilding and in need of redesign to meet our needs into the future. the financing structure in place today and the federal resources being devoted to these essential systems is outdated and inadequate. we need to do more to address the lingering problems from the financial debacle that crashed the economy in 2007. too many of our citizens are struggling under heavy debt loads as a result of the student loans, the unemployment and the underemployment. our tax code needs revision.

revision to spur business investment, to bring down the deficit and to make the code fair for all taxpayers. and we need to invest in research and development, the lifeblood of innovation and progress. inthe sted this legislation proposes to provide more to a sector of the economy that is already thriving, oil and gas production are at record levels, as are the profits of these industries. this bill continues the same old energy policy that we have been following for decades and ignores the mounting social and environmental costs associated with this continuation. this package doubles down on carbon emissions, because it is a fossil-fuel-only policy and with this proposal, we ask our citizens to have reduced public health, not to support these fuels but to expand fossil

fuels. it is sad during the week of the 50th week of the wilderness act, laws that recognize all the values of public lands and resources to current and future generations and have provided so much, that we are considering this bill. h.r. 2 represents a narrow view of natural resources, as assets to be exploited for short-term profit by this generation with little regard for our stewardship responsibility to our children and grandchildren. if we do not act decisively and soon, our legacy will be one of shortsight he hadness and wasted opportunity. we have ignored the challenges and need to demonstrate the courage and generosity of spirit that previous generations expressed on our behalf. we need to do what we were sent here to do, govern by working together and compromising to find solutions with

consideration of the present and eye to the future and with bold plans and initiatives. generally, i'm a big fan of recycling. but h.r. 2 is only suitable for disposal. this is a deeply splaud piece of legislation. i cannot support it and i urge my colleagues to reject it. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from louisiana, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding and his leadership over the years. we will miss him in this house, but i appreciate him leading on these energy efforts as he has over the years. i thank my colleague from nebraska, mr. terry, for bringing this bill forward. this is a jobs bill. but this is also a bill about american energy security, and it's a bill about national

security. and let's go through each of those. first of all, this bill high lights the keystone pipeline. this bill has been sitting on the president's desk for six years where 40,000 jobs hang in the mix. the president says no. and we are saying yes to great investment in a trading partner in canada so we can get energy from canada that we no longer have to get from middle eastern countries who don't like us. it opens up the vast natural resources that are closed right now, off the coast of places like virginia, alaska and even in louisiana. where in our state we have said those extra revenue sources, that money that would be coming into our treasury would help us reduce the national debt and states would be playing a role. if a state wants to help produce energy for america, they can also help their own economies.

we want to restore our coast and putting a buffer in place that blocks future storms. this helps lower gas prices at the pumps. families who are struggling in this tough economy because of the radical regulations coming out of the obama administration can get relief through the energy security. removing the dependence we have on middle eastern countries and other people who don't like us. we dealt with and started to address the threat from groups like isil. it makes over $2 million a day from the oil fields they control that funds their terrorist activities. let's become energy secure as a nation and get the energy security and the jobs that go with it and great access to those resources that improves our economy. i urge adoption of the bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. waxman: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i am very pleased

to yield three minutes to a hard-working member of the natural resources committee, the gentleman from montana. mr. daines: i rise in support of h.r. 2. new technology has fueled a 21st century energy boon, but americans are paying way too much for expenses like gas, groceries and electricity and that's why the house has passed dozens of bills to lower energy costs and create jobs like the bill i introduced that passed, called the hydropower development equity and jobs act and passed last year. this is commonsense legislation and would expand hydropower production. it creates jobs while lowering electric prices for thousands of

families. whether it is from approving the keystone pipeline to stop these out of touch regulations, the house is fighting to protect energy and the jobs it supports. in montana, 5,000 jobs depend on coal and thousands of middle-class families rely on coal-fired power for an affordable source of energy. 51% of the electric supply in montana comes from coal. and construction of the keystone pipeline will not only create thousands of good jobs. you know what? it will keep energy prices low for montana families. i was out traveling out in eastern montana and visited a sgow power. if the keystone is built, the company will be able to keep their consumers' electric rates flat for the next 10 years.

if it isn't, the co-op expect the rates to go up 40% for the rate pairs. these are hard life working montana families, many of them living pay check to pay check and on fixed incomes. unfortunately tomorrow marks the sixth year anniversary from the time the first permit to build the first keystone pipeline was filed. took the canadians seven months to approve it. we are now waiting six years on this president. the american people have waited far too long. the house has passed legislation to approve its construction. but the senate refuses to act. it is time for the senate, it is time for the president to join us in fighting for solutions that create jobs, lower energy costs and protect middle-class american families. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserve? mr. waxman: we continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington.

mr. hastings: i yield three minutes to the chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. goodlatte. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. demratgat i thank the chairman for yielding and his leadership on this issue. 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 and unwelcomed increase in the electric bill leave options but to cut elsewhere. for businesses, higher energy cost invests in less money for jobs. 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 by discouraging exploration of domestic resources, imposing additional regulatory hurdles on energy creation and attempting to

bypass congress to have devastating policies like cap and trade. congress reminds the obama administration about what they seem to have forgotten. america's economy is linked to affordable energy. this bill encourages us to expand energy production. i'm pleased that it includes provisions that i have worked on for a long time to move forward, a lease sale off the virginia cost. this will provide necessary energy resources for our nation while providing a significant boost to the economy to the commonwealth of virginia. it also includes other important provisions like the judiciary-approved rapid act, which cuts through the government red tape and impeding development of our resources. today's bill helps to ensure that america is an energy leader, utilizing our resources to strengthen the reliability and affordability of energy for american consumers. during this economic slowdown,

we must encourage more legislation like the american energy solutions for lower costs and more american jobs act. adopting policies that seek to rebuild our economy and create more jobs. i urge all members to vote for this legislation that ensures our energy security while boosting our economy. and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california continues to reserve. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield four minutes to one of my classmates, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. witness field. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for -- whitfield. mr. whitfield: i'm delighted to have this bill on the floor today and confine my remarks to one piece of legislation and that is the electricity and security affordability act. this legislation has passed the house before, and it's designed to do two things.

one to reverse the extreme regulations coming out of the e.p.a. on existing coal-fired plants and new coal-fired plants. we all understand that the president of the united states views that the number one issue facing mankind today is climate change. and while we all recognize that there is climate change, we do not view it as the most important issue facing man today. but because of the president's position, his extreme views, he's dictating to e.p.a. to take positions that is damaging the coal industry, but more important than the coal industry, damaging the electricity produced from coal. now what does that mean to the american people? ell, how many of you are aware that co-2 emissions in america today are lower than they were

in 20 years. america doesn't have to take a back seat to any country in the world. and yet this president, with his e.p.a., has passed regulations that make it impossible to build a new coal plant in america in an amount that makes it commercially feasible to do. . this president makes it impossible to build a new coal plant. now, i would be the first to admit that a new coal plant is not going to be built in america because our natural gas prices are very low. we're fortunate with the shale development that gas prices are extremely low. but what if we find ourselves in the position that they found themselves in in europe? gas prices coming from russia are so high that they started mothballing their natural gas plants to produce electricity

and start building new coal plants and last year they imported 53% of the coal exports from america. so in europe they have that flexibility. but in america we don't have that flexibility. so if gas prices go up, which they may very well do, then we can't build a new coal plant because it's too expensive and the technology is not there to meet the extreme, stringent emissions standard set by e.p.a. so this legislation would stop that, it would say, e.p.a., you can regulate co-2 emissions but you might -- you can build a new coal plant if you use the best available control technology. now, what do we do, you know, next june, the e.p.a.'s coming out with a new regulation that in effect will federalize the electricity generating business in america, for the first time.

the e.p.a. is setting standards , emission caps, for every state in america. and we already know that in kentucky they've identified 15 coal units that will be closed down. and guess what? when they adopted this regulation, they did not do any thorough reliability study. now, we all recognize that renewables play an important role, but they cannot be the base load of electricity production in america. and if america's going to remain competitive in the global marketplace, we have to have low-cost, abundant, affordable, reliable electricity. is my time expired? mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. whitfield: so all we're saying to the president, 5:00, -- president, ok, let's be reasonable. this legislation will allow

e.p.a. to regulate co-2 emissions, but you can build a new coal plant if you use the best available control technology, and if you want to regulate existing plants, you adopt the regulation but congress will set the effective date. the president is going to be gone from office when all of these regulations really start hitting and america is going to be hit in its ability to compete in the global market place. and i would urge passage of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. waxman: i'm going to have more to say about this bill later but i want to comment on the comments that were just made to us by the gentleman from kentucky. he suggested that we don't need to do anything more about climate change because green house gas emissions are -- greenhouse gas emissions are falling in the united states. well, that is not an accurate story. because while u.s. greenhouse gas emissions did fall in 2008

and 2009 during the economic recession, since that time our overall emissions have grown. consumetively, u.s. emissions grew -- cumulatively u.s. emissions grew, not fell, in 2011 and -- 2010 and 2011, the most recent years for which data is available. but the fact of the matter is hat if coal is being displaced by natural gas, it's not because of any regulation, it's because the market forces are moving in that direction, it's just cheaper. and why do we want to say that's wrong? let the market work its will. the less we regulate emissions from power plants that cause greenhouse gases to be spewed into the air, we're neglecting the major reason we

have climate change in this country today and this bill would prevent the e.p.a. from doing anything about the problem. burning coal would be completely unregulated. and we would continue to add greenhouse gases to our atmosphere. i think that this is them hiding their heads in the sand, denying that there's climate change, denying that we need to do anything about it, pretending like it's not a problem. this is a disservice to the american people and the future of our economy. those businesses that develop the technologies for the future, which will be technologies that reduce carbon change, carbon pollution, are going to be the place where the economies are going to be benefited, not those that deny the problem and do nothing about it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding. today i rise in strong support of h.r. 2, the american energy solutions for lower costs and more affordable jobs act. this important legislation will unleash america's energy potential, create thousands of jobs and stop the administration from destroying tens of thousands of jobs. and i urge all of my colleagues to support it. representative lamborn and i sponsored the preventing government waste and protecting coal mining jobs in america act, which is a portion of this package. this specific title of the bill stops the administration's efforts to virtually eliminate underground mining in the eastern united states, costs thousands of jobs and lead to skyrocketing energy costs for all americans. since president obama came into office, his department of the interior has tried to rewrite the stream before you zone rule. the president's preferred rule would cost at least 7,000 direct jobs and thoupses more

indirect jobs -- thousands more indirect jobs. this is the administration's own estimate and it could potentially be much worse. the president's rewrite of the rule has been ongoing now for five years, has cost taxpayers millions of dollars and has been the subject of an ongoing investigation by chairman hastings and the house natural resources committee. as we have seen across the administration, the interior department has largely refused to turn over documents and recordings to the committee in a clear violation of the house's oversight authority. the administration is clearly holding back information that they know would be damaging to their efforts. the house has previously passed this legislation on two separate occasions. both times on a bipartisan basis. unfortunately the senate has refused to even consider the legislation either time. i specifically want to thank chairman hastings and chairman lamborn for their leadership on this issue. without their investigation of the department on this rulemaking process, we might not have been able to stop it from going forward. however, we will continue our oversight and make sure that

the department doesn't try to push through a rule in their final two years. again, i thank the chairman for his hard work on not only this particular title of h.r. 2 but for his work and leadership on the entire package. this legislation will be a big step forward toward energy independence and security and i urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, i yield myself five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: since, mr. speaker, this bill is not a new bill to be presented on the house floor , it's a compileation of bills that have already been proposed and passed for the most part on a partisan republican basis. and people have complained on the other side of the aisle that their bills didn't go anywhere. well, they didn't go anywhere because they didn't have support in the other body, the u.s. senate. the president of the united states said he would veto it. they can't pass a bill in the house with republican votes and

put it into law. so if you can't pass a law without working with the democrats and reaching compromises, what republicans think is the most effective thing to do is to say it over and over and over again. let's not forget, we know that our republican colleagues didn't like the affordable care act. sometimes known as obamacare. so on this house floor we voted over 50 times to repeal it. republicans said we're going to repeal it and replace it. well, we never heard what they're going to replace it with. they just want to repeal it. well, they didn't repeal it. when they passed the first vote. and they didn't repeal it when they passed the 50th vote. but they thought if they say it over and over again and do it over and over again they'd get somewhere, i presume. when psychologists talk about

this, they call it perceveration. saying the same thing over and over again. but i don't think this is a reasonable way to legislate. if they want to legislate, and you don't have the power, you have to compromise. you have to talk with the president. you have to talk with the senate majority. you have to talk with your own colleagues. but the republicans don't want to talk to anybody except themselves over and over and over again. let me give you an example. since republicans took control of the house less than four years ago, they have cast over 500 anti-environmental votes. they have voted over 500 times to weaken protections for public health and the environment. to let polluters off the hook. and even to deny science. well, i presume they think that's a good idea. they voted against clean,

renewable energy and energy efficiency. they voted to give taxpayer dollars to oil companies. they have voted to allow more toxic pollution in our air and more contaminants in our drinking water. i suppose they think that's a good idea. but others don't agree with them. nor i think do the american people. they voted repeatedly to deny the reality of climate change and block any action to cut carbon pollution. they don't want a cap and trade, they don't want the e.p.a. to regulate. what is their plan? their plan is to deny the existence of climate change and pretend it's not doing any harm. we've kept track of these votes that we consider anti-environmental. and there are over 300 anti-environmental votes last congress and today ranking member defazio and i released another report that there were over 200 moran ty environment

votes in this -- more anti-environment votes in this congress. republicans like to complain about a mythical war on coal. it's a fantasy. but there is a war on the environment. that is being waged on the floor of the house. and the bill before us today is proof of that. it contains dozens of anti-environment provisions. all of us want for prosperity and security for america. we know, many of us, that climate change is harmeling us today, through droughts and -- harmeling us today, through droughts and -- harming us today, through droughts and fires and floods and more. democrats for the most part have recognized the threat and we know that we can tackle it while at the same time growing jobs and our economy. how do we know this? because that was the history of the clean air act. every time we strengthened the

clean air act, industry opponents said it would cost too much. it would weaken our economy. it would mean lost jobs. but when we acted, we found that our air is cleaner and our economy is stronger. republicans take a much different approach. they refuse to admit that climate change is real because then if they did they'd have to do something about it. their policies embodied in this bill deny the problem and threaten our future. remember the health care debate? we said, it's not fair to discriminate against people -- i yield myself two additional minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional two minutes. mr. waxman: we said it's not fair to discriminate and deny, allow insurance companies to deny the chance for people with pre-existing policies to buy insurance. republicans said, oh, yeah, we don't think that's a good idea. but they didn't have a plan to do anything about it. they were happy to let it continue. they wanted -- let it continue. they wanted to say it's ok for

insurance companies to put caps on the amount that the policies would pay. they warned that a system where people are priced out of insurance, if they couldn't afford it, well, that's just too bad. they deny the realities of what had been happening to millions of americans and now we have a health care law that's benefiting millions of americans. this bill is not about health care, but they are denying these environmental problems and they're trying to keep federal agencies from doing their job. power plants are the single largest uncontrolled source of carbon pollution in the united states. e.p.a. has proposed critically important regulations to cut carbon pollution from power plants in a balanced, cost-effective, commonsense way. and these rules would cut smog and they would stop deadly par tick late pollution, they would -- particulate pollution, they would save thousands of lives per year and avoid tens of billions of dollars in costs.

but this bill eliminates e.p.a.'s authority to issue any rules. nothing can happen. well, mr. speaker, power plants aren't the only source of carbon pollution. tar sands is another big source. they produce 17% more carbon pollution than conventional oil. and yet this bill grants a regulatory earmark to the canadian keystone x.l. pipeline , effectively exempting it from ll u.s. federal project constructed in the united states. this bill creates a new process to rubber stamp every other pending and future tar sands pipeline. it even exempts these massive

projects from the national environmental policy act by limiting the nepa review, which was adopted by congress overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis to only a tiny sliver on the pipeline only where it crosses the border. there are many other anti-environmental provisions thewould allow them to veto rules over e.p.a. even though they are not in the jurisdiction or expertise of the department of energy. this may make sense to the oil companies. is may be a give-away to the koch brothers but i don't think most americans would agree this. it should not trump everything we care about such as raising healthy children. i hope my colleagues will vote against this bill. we have had it on the floor too many times, and i hope we defeat it this time. i reserve the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gohmert: my late mother used to say i should have been a college professor because i like to educate people and nothing gives me more thrill than to help educate people here on the floor. democrats say republicans deny what is happening to the people. there are 11 million people who are not working today. they gave up looking for jobs. we care deeply about those people and when it comes to climate change, my friends say the republicans continue to deny its existence. climate change is real and is a fact. it happens four times a year. we acknowledge that. it's a real thing. now under this bill, my friend

says that coal would be completely unregulated. he's right if he is talking about china, but here in the united states where we're talking about real jobs, cheaper energy, helping families that are struggling to make ends meet, we're talking about helping americans, not the chinese, where we lose so many jobs. so my friends say bills don't have support in the senate. he's right if he's talking about harry reid. but if harry reid will bring these bills to the floor, my friends are going to see democrats either vote for them or lose their seats because they know they have to support them, because it helps real americans. now what our president and others on the other side of the aisle don't acknowledge is the fact that the policies they have supported help big oil.

they help their friends in the crony capitalist big business. they help those kipeds of folks. the fact is even when president obama proposed what he called a jobs bill, it gutted independent oil companies and gas companies in america and big oil companies only operate about 5% of the oil and gas wells in america. 95% are drilled and operated by independent oil companies. they are regulated. and if we really want to help america, we need to pass this bill, force harry reid to either deal with it or lose his position asthma the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. leader. my friend previously talked about wilderness areas. national parks are suffering. why? because this administration and my friends across the aisle and harry reid want to blow money on

solar companies that won't work that actually if this administration were not reducing the amount of permits by 40% to 60% from what they were under president clinton, then we would have all the money we need to make our national parks -- -- we would have all the money we need to have the most wonderful wilderness areas and national parks you can imagine. they are pro government, pro regulation so the 80-year-old lady that will told me she was born with only a wooden stove in her home. she may die with it if we don't stop gutting the energy that we can produce. thank you. i yield back.

mr. waxman: may i inquire how much time we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 25 minutes. the gentleman from washington has 22 minutes remaining. mr. waxman: i won't take 22 minutes to rebut the statement that was made but only three minutes. i'm impressed the statement by a man who is trying to educate, as he says, the american people that republicans worry about 11 million people not working. i don't know if that number is right or wrong, but we have millions of people without jobs today, and it's because the congress is busy passing over and over and over again, bills to benefit the oil industry and not to help people get jobs. they care so much about them, but wouldn't give them unemployment compensation. care so much about them? they want to take away their food stamps or allow them to

have a minimum living wage. they care so much about them, that they want them to go to the lowest paid jobs they could possibly find and if they can't find that, well, it must be their own fault. harry reid is the majority leader in the senate. the senate allows amendments to any bill. it doesn't have to be germane. but in the house of representatives, no bill or amendment can be offered unless it's germane or permitted under the rule. and the rules committee is controlled by the republican leadership in the house. and if we were to have been allowed to vote on an immigration bill that will passed overwhelmingly in the senate, it would have been passed the house. but we were denied that opportunity. if we were allowed to vote on background checks on gun purchases so we wouldn't find

guns and assault weapons in the hands of people who are a danger because of mental illness to their community, or have a criminal record that they have used guns for illegal purpose, that would have passed. even a majority of the national rifle association supports that kind of measure. so let's not by so pius to educate the american people to say, oh, in the senate, they don't consider these things because in the house, we are denied every day an opportunity to talk about many things. and let me give you another example that is pertinent to this debate. the energy and commerce committee has jurisdiction over the issue of climate change. we have not been able to get a single hearing that would bring in the scientists to tell us why they are concerned about climate

change, to tell us how, when all the pronouncements, consensus discussions among scientists internationally and here from the institute of medicine and national academy of sciences, why they think this is a problem and why we have to deal with it. well, if you don't allow the scientists to talk, you are purposely encouraging your own ignorance and acting upon it. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. up up it's not off -- mr. upton:, it's not often in life that you get a second chance. we are offering the senate to stand up yes and will help create jobs and lower costs.

several of the bills were advanced through our committee, energy and commerce and many were bipartisan from the very start. it includes a solution to build the keystone pipeline six years after the application went forward. here we are, six years later, application was first submitted and we still don't have a pipeline and folks are still out of work. shouldn't take six years to approve a pipeline and the president's continued political delays are simply unacceptable. we are taking action to ensure that this does not happen again. we have a solution today to bring certainty to the approval process for cross-border energy projects so we don't have to ndure a key-stone-delay in the future. last winter, millions of customers throughout the country suffered high heating bills along with the cold temperatures

due to inadequate infrastructure. we are voting to get those much needed pipelines in the ground safely and quickly so we can start delivering relief from the high energy bills. we are working to prevent energy prices from spiking even further and stop e.p.a.'s rules on power plants and energy-related rules that will only lead to higher prices and yes, fewer jobs. everyone is affected by emergency cost increases but they hurt the nation's poor and the most vulnerable. one of the easiest and most effective way to save consumers money is through energy efficiency, which is why we encourage the development and use of new, efficient and renewable technologies. very important. and finally, we have a solution to not only create energy jobs here at home, but to help our allies across the world by giving them access to our

abundant natural gas supply. a few hours ago we heard from the ukranian president to help weaken's russia's threat to the region. every one of us was on our feet. he said this, you support a nation, meaning the united states, that has chosen freedom. in ukraine, you don't have to build a democracy, it already exists. you need to defend it. that's what our lng export bill does. many of the solutions we are voting on today is part of the package that received strong bipartisan in the house but senate leader reid has refused to bring them any to the floor for a vote. can i have an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. upton: this is a subject that should rise above

partisanship. we are giving the senate another shot to put politics aside and put american families first. we welcome the senate to join us as we say yes to american jobs and yes to american energy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: we continue to reserve our time. may i inquire how many more speakers? mr. hastings: we still have several more. and i will advise you when we get down to that point. but we still have several members. mr. waxman: we continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. waxman: i yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, mr. bilirakis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bilirakis: i rise today in support of the american energy solutions for lower costs and more americans jobs act. this bill is a substantive step towards more affordable energy prices and job creation across

the country. today the average gas price, $3.28, well up from the $2.35 per gallon in 2009. not only are gas prices up, but, so, too, are the price of groceries and cooling and heating your home. other important measures, this bill would approve the keystone pipeline. friday marks six years of delays on key spoken by this administration. that is too long for a job-creating measure. domestic energy production helps middle-class americans, mr. speaker, with their every day costs. vote yes for the middle class. vote yes for jobs. and more affordable energy. vote yes on this bill. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california continues to reserve. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i would advise my friend from california that i thought i had more speakers, but

we are -- dwrime prepared to close and the gentleman is prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: we are not prepared to close yet, because i want to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from the district of columbia who has a right to be here as a full-voting member here. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. norton: i can't say enough how much this congress will miss him and how indebted we are. ou have extended my time. i'd like to say some closing words about this congress. i have spent most of my time in the congress and in the minority with my good friends . the other side in control

, even say that this is for those congresses, a most nusual 113th congress. this is a shameful way this package of bills to close this congress. usually this is a time or certainly i have seen it under republican congresses when you made room for must-pass bills. certainly not for never-to-pass bills. sure-to-be-veto this was certainly not the time to make up for running through the 113th congress with neither

an agenda or legislation to show for it, to show that we were entitled to be paid for being here for two years. instead of some must-pass bills -- and i'll suggest a few -- what we have heard from my good friends on the other side are some tax and other giveaway bills that add to the deficit stamped that should be special interest. there was legislation before us that with small changes in law could have been passed. those bills would never -- if they had passed would never have been considered bills of one side of the aisle or the other. for the -- for instance, the paycheck fairness act simply

updates -- i must say in quite small ways -- the equal pay act. that's the act that i administered when i chaired the equal opportunity employment commission. it's already on the books. nobody wants to repeal it. all the paycheck fairness act would have done was to make small changes to bring it into the 21st century, and those changes have no ideological impact. or take the federal student loan refinancing act. that begged for passage to give students faced with debt and no jobs, this group of students who had the bad luck to come out in a bad economy, that bill surely deserved bipartisan support. for me the biggest piece of missing legislation, however,

is the re-authorized transportation bill, and i say that because that would have been the equivalent of the jobs act of 2014. instead, we are going to leave here this evening having given othing to the american people, to assure there will be jobs for the several months that we are gone. that is what they most wanted. that is what they have given them least of. e're on track to beat last year's record. we are on track to become the least productive congress in he history of our country. closing the congress with a nch of never-to-pass bills

hat nobody envisioned would be taken up, will never make up for the shameful record of the 113th congress. i yield back the balance of my ime. mr. waxman: as i understand what the gentlelady said, if we had passed a transportation bill, that would have provided help for our infrastructure and provided jobs. we didn't vote for that bill even once, and the gentlelady also said we should have done a paycheck fairness law. well, we didn't have a chance to vote on that. the speaker of the house or the majority leader of the house wouldn't allow it to be brought to the house floor. so many young people are struggling with student loans. there have been proposals to deal with that. and yet we were not allowed to even vote on a bill to deal

with the student loan problem. we haven't tackled the real things that people care about, and if they care about what's in this bill today, it's been passed by the house. why aren't we moving on and using the time on the house floor for other worthwhile purposes? i think that's a question that the american people are going to have to think about as they go to the polls in another month, but we had a six-week recess and now we've been here for two whole weeks and now we're going to take another recess until the election and then we' come back for maybe -- we'll come back for maybe another couple weeks. it doesn't mean you have to work too hard in the congress of the united states to get nothing done. we're getting nothing done, and the american people are losing out.

mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, this is a good bill. it's to acknowledge on both sides of the aisle that this bill is a package of bills that has passed the senate. it's been talked about that the senate hasn't acted on the individual bills. it's been talked about the senate hasn't acted on a lot of bills. as a matter of fact, the main bill we passed yesterday, the continuing resolution, which is a terrible way to run the government, by the way, when you haven't got certainty, was passed largely because the senate had not passed one of the 13 house bills out of the senate. how do you negotiate when you have that sort of situation? here's a point that has not been made today. maybe my friends on the other side of the aisle aren't familiar with the -- what our founders envisioned when they

created a bicameral legislative body. in order for our system to work, both houses have to pass bills. now, the american people in their judgment for, you know, they make good judgments every two years. sometimes some of us don't like what that judgment is, but in their wisdom they created one of the houses that's controlled by the democrats and in their wisdom they created a house that's controlled by republicans. now, just by very definition of that, clearly you're going to have two different views. clearly you're going to have two different views. i acknowledge that, and i doubt if anybody on the other side would dispute that too. so when we talk about sending bills that we think are important from here over to the senate -- and by the way, i should add within this package of bills where a number of bills that came out of the house's natural resources committee that i have the privilege to chair, every one

of them, every one of them passed with bipartisan support. that means there is -- that means there were democrats that voted for it. but here's the issue. if the senate then has a different view on these topics than we do, then fine, pass a bill. pass a bill and if there's a difference between the house version and the senate version, we have a means to work that out. it's called going to conference. but the fact is the senate hasn't passed anything so how do you go to conference? the only way we find and we can make our point over and over and over again is to say, ok, we'll send it over there. maybe somebody, somebody on the other -- in the other body will finally get the message and say, maybe we ought to pass it. and finally, i just want to make a point too. i had the privilege of serving on the rules committee for 12 years and, yes, the rules committee in a larger body like the house does set the rules for debate. when the democrats were in majority, they set the rules

for debate that we criticized. obviously they're criticizing us because we set the rules for debate. but my friend from california said that the senate doesn't work that way with rules. they work by unanimous consent. anybody can offer an amendment on any bill. well, that may be -- that may be how the senate rules do, but when it's manipulated by the majority leader, all that goes away. it's a process that i admit i don't know a whole a lot about the senate rules but it's amendments to be offered, majority leader fills the tree and nobody has an amendment. it's gotten so bad, so bad over there in the last six years that the junior senator from alaska, the junior senator from alaska who's been there for six years has not had an opportunity to offer one amendment on the floor. and the junior senator happens to be a member of the majority party. you talk about openness,

there's no openness that way. so we feel in this body here, the best way to make the case by debating bills we think are important for the american people, jobs bills, energy bills, energy security bills, the best way to do that is continue to send same stuff over to the senate. maybe, maybe -- because hope springs eternal, at least from my perspective, they'll take one of these up. all they have to do is take up one of these bills and change it and send it back over here and we'll negotiate a difference. but they haven't even done that. see, that was never acknowledged during this whole debate of defense of what the senate has or has not done. as a matter of fact, mr. speaker, that is exactly what has happened and that's where we are where we are. so mr. speaker, this is once again a very good bill that deals with energy and energy security and american jobs. i urge its passage and yield

back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 727 the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on 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 remove federal government obstacles to the production of more domestic energy, to ensure transport of that energy reliably to businesses, consumers and other end users, to lower the cost of energy to consumers, to enable manufacturers and other businesses to access domestically produced energy affordably and reliably in order to create and sustain more secure and well-paying american jobs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> opposed in the current form. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. schneider of illinois moves to recommit the bill h.r. 2 to the committee on natural resources and the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to

report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment -- add at the end the following -- division d, mills provisions. section one, policing excessive speculation in energy markets. the mineral leasing act, 30, united states code, 181, is amended by redesignating section 44 as section 4r5 and by inserting after section 43 the following -- section 44, revenues to be made available to the commodity futures trading commission. a, establishment of treasury account. the secretary of the treasury in this section referred to as the secretary shall establish an account in the treasury of the united states. b, deposit into account of certain revenues generated by this act. the secretary shall deposit into the account established under subsection a, $10 million of the total of the amounts received by the united states each fiscal year under lices

sued under this -- under leases issued under this act. c, availability and use of funds. one, in general, subject to paragraph 2, the amounts in the accounts established under subsection a shall be made available to the commodity futures -- mr. schneider: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? >> objection. the clerk: trading commission, to use its existing authorities to limit excessive speculation in energy markets. two, subject to appropriations. the authority provided in paragraph 1 may be exercised only to such extent and with respect to such amounts as are provided in advanced in appropriations acts. section 2, protecting national security. any issue shall specify that united states oil, petroleum products and natural gas shall not be exported to any nation. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. mr. hastings: i ask unanimous

consent that the reading be dispensed with. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- is there objection? pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. schneider: thank you, mr. speaker. in is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to the underlying bill and to the policy direction that this legislation would take us in. what in this bill will improve the evidence lives of my constituents and what will make our country stronger. unfortunately, the answer is nothing. this will roll back commonsense safeguards and the great lakes upon which we depend from harmful pollutants. this bill would reduce the quality of our drinking water and threaten the safety of the

air we breathe and regulation of greenhouse depasses. even as the communities i represent and the communities around our country have been ravaged by severe weather events can only be a tributed to the effects of climate change. this bill does not seek to create a healthier environment or our children but sacrifices to future generations to a clean, healthy and dynamic world. i offer an amendment to this legislation. pollutantsre-- limit to the massive of petroleum coke. this toxic dust when improperly stored can become an airborne pollute ant which has caused severe health effects.

t would ensure we ensure our strategic resources by denying oil and gas exports to any country or company that supports or harbors terrorist organizations including isis or al qaeda. this is in the vital national security interests of the united states. this amendment would empower the commodities which distorts markets, harming consumers at the gas pump. increasing these efforts will bolster transparency while discouraging bad actors from financial gain. like many of my colleagues, i want to pursue an energy policy that utilizes all of the above strategy including innovative technologies to save consumers at the pump and lower home energy costs. unfortunately, the underlying legislation does not achieve

this goal and would do harmful damage to our environment and health of our communities. my amendment would be a step forward rather than several steps backward in the underlying bill. i ask my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and i reserve. -- i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i rise to claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit. this is probably my last opportunity to respond to a democrat moigs to recommit and i have heard a whole lot of them in the time i had the privilege to do that. and i get, i kind of surmise from reading the motion to recommit that he's talking about energy and energy supply. well, mr. speaker, that is precisely what the underlying legislation is all about. my friends on the other side of the aisle talked about how oil and gas production has gone up

in the united states, increased in the united states, which it has. but, mr. speaker, he left out the important part, it's not because of this administration, it's in spite of this administration's action, because all of that activity is increasing on state and private lands. but they don't have the burdensome regulation from the federal government inhibitting that growth. however, the focus of this legislation is to do exactly the same thing what is happening on private and state lands, on federal land, because if you have a problem with supply, what is the best way to respond to that? you increase the opportunity for supply. what does that do to the marketplace? it lowers prices. who does it benefit? the american people and jobs. i just simply want to say these motions to recommit have been procedural motions. they have been political motions

over time, not that that is something we deal with on the floor, but once again it is a motion that is not worthy of passing. i urge my colleagues to reject, reject the motion to recommit and vote for the underlying bill. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. yeas and nays are ordered. ursuant to the house order today. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 4751 an act to make technical corrections to public law 110-229 to rename the bain bridge island of the memorial and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the

this legislation reads house gop to vote on a massive energy bill. this is a package of 13 energy bells. why is that, and wh is it

theing up walid -- while house is about to end its session? >> they are trying to appease the appetites of the voters and show the voters that if you give the gop the majority in the senate, and they control both chambers, that these are the types of things that you will see them push out. xl will see keystone approved, liquefied natural gas export. them push hard against the obama climate policies. pipeline,tioned the is the house close to approving it, and are the republicans try to change that? >> right now it is frozen. testsate department put on hold because of litigation issues that are going on in nebraska. e of thew, the rout

pipeline is in question. upt is not supposed to wrap until november, after the midterm elections and likely into 2016. republicans are not happy about that democrats are not happy about that. this week is the sixth anniversary of the first permit application. the republicans are ramping up different types of engagement around it. the chamber of commerce is visiting the pipeline route. a few senators will have a prep conference today to try and put more pressure on the white house. >> there is also a provision in the bill that would lock the epa rule for carbon. who was involved in that entity tell us more about the role itself? now, the bill, which is proposed by congressman

ed and another representative, bill johnson, those two bills are trying to push back the environmental protection which's proposed rule tries demand a carbon to listen from existing power plants. reduce carbons to pollution from those power plants by 30% by 2030. the republicans are not happy about it, they are saying that it will kill jobs and shutter plants across the country and make energy prices go up. with those two bills would do is essentially just block that regulation. >> you treated yesterday that the white house issued a veto threat on the house energy package. it said that it purports to promote energy security but would undermine it and the environment. can you dig into the specifics? >> the bill essentially is trying to push these very , andard republican stances

there are things that the administration is very much against. they do not want anything in between or meddling in the process with keystone xl, a field that is something that should be handled by the state department. on top of that, he is attacking termdent obama's second legacy of climate change, which is a huge part of his legacy. it is very important to the whole reasonthe that they fight in his advisor during the start of the second term, to make sure that these policies are finished on time before the president leaves office. in majority of these bills go against a lot of what the democrats and the president stand for. on top of that, they also seek to expand off shore and onshore oil and gas drilling. that is something they are trying to tackle right now and they do not want republicans getting ahead of that process. >> do you know if the senate

plans on taking up any of the package energy bills during the lame-duck session after the election? >> that is most likely not going to happen. it would be very out of character if harry reid were to take up any of these bills because the majority of democrats are adamantly opposed to them. it is something that the administration is opposed to. this is a way for house to thecans to say american voters, if this is what you want, these are the type of energy bills to keep the american energy boom going, then you guys should give us control of the senate, november. lopez writes about energy policy for "the hill." thank you for your time today. the house effected back in

the 35 minutes to vote on two bills dealing with energy and the keystone xl pipeline and making tax breaks permanent. until members return, around 6 p.m. eastern, we will take a look at president obama's strategy on isis. "washington today's journal." >> good morning sir. came to the bill yesterday on arming syrian rebels, how to develop? >> -- how did you vote? >> no. >> why? plan isresident's flawed in a lot of ways, but arming these folks who many , theirhave suggested ranks are filled with radical ts, i thought there was

too great a chance that the weapons would be used against us. approve any portions other than arming the rebels, more airstrikes? >> i was actually prepared to --port a general resolution president obama is our commander-in-chief, and we should be supportive of it and hopefully he will be successful. but when they made it specifically approving the of armings strategy the free syrian army, knowing what knowledgeable people have told me about it, i said that was just too big a risk. it is a flawed strategy to begin with, and especially if it is relying on the free syrian army. >> what about the idea of american boots on the ground in this matter? >> i think many of my republican colleagues are off base when

they talk about inserting more american boots on the ground, because the plant cannot succeed without boots on the ground. yes, we can to feed the radical defeat thee -- can radical forces there, isil, we can defeat them without american boots on the ground using american air power by using the right locals. we the president -- because did that in afghanistan, the mujahedin helped defeat the soviet union, we defeated the taliban with the northern alliance. the northern alliance to taliban. we can do that again. a strategy that works. >> what are the right locals? >> the most important group is to arm the kurds and, my belief

iraq's lines were drawn by colonial powers, why are we prisoner to what we should arm them to the teeth. perhaps we should also try to get some support from assad rather than let him sit it out. he's a bad guy. sometimes, like when we allied order to defeat adolf hitler, that made sense. guy. allied with -- we stalin to defeat adolf hitler, that made sense. host: what would we benefit from going to assad directly?

uest: we would benefit from aving a force of evil and in crucifying christians that we as wellve another force as the kurds that would attack destroying both sides. syrian army, a weapon of the moderate muslims. host: 202-585-3880 for democrats. 202-585-3818 for republicans. 202-585-3882. let's start with joe in oklahoma city. democrats line, hello.

caller: i want to get one thing bat. off of the george bush started this whole disaster. the lid off of pandora's box. day, he only the went to give people oil. think the iraqi people knew that. to me hear what you have say. thank you. uest: the truth, you were george bush deserves lion's share of the blame. the fact that they opened up the region to this type of chaos. saddam hussein did not mean any

harm. in fact a ein was force that kept the mullah islam in radical terms of the iranians in check. and there was no reason, i misinformed.re i backed him up then. it was probably the worst ever made, backing charge in iraq the job asn't finished in afghanistan. however, i can't tell you what the motives were. him to inly wasn't for get the oil. i mean that's -- that, i'm cliche.s a and i think there are a lot of play here rather than for some personal benefit. his nk george bush and father, herbert walker bush, were just consumed with the idea get rid of d to saddam hussein. that's left us with this dilemma. springs, m grinkov florida, john, republican line,

hi. caller: hi, good morning. like to make a comment about arming the syrian rebels. we did the thing in iraq. a failure. afghanistan is a failure, syria will be a failure. syria?l be next after where will we go then? and all of this deficit we have, funds coming from? arm these people. unemployment. people on food stamps at all-time highs. the infrastructure is crumbling

out from under our feet. i guess he said his piece there. i certainly would agree that we be the fford to policemen of the world. e cannot afford to be spending large sums of money to be fair. is ink the president's plan dependent upon a large without the entire of the cost being picked up by the il rich friends like saudis and others in that region. we should not have to be our people. i oppose the introduction of ground forces in this. any 't see why there's reason why you have an evil force that may and is in the becoming a threat to the whole region which is the isil group, when they crucify

young christians or murder not converting or take westerners and just behead them in order to, quote, not their own population, but terrorize the rest of the world, well, that's a force that deserves our attention. i think we alone had to bare the costs. helping out the air support as long as the right ground troops see vailable, i don't anything wrong with that strategy, especially if the locals are going to pick up the price. host: about the potential of u.s. ground troops being part of this. do you see differences of what the president said and what you heard from general dempsey this saying about it? guest: it will be highly likely -- this will just air o more than

power. would say having the special forces teams having specific observations is again something to have he president that type of leverage in dealing with very evil forces in the world. the in complaint with putting here is he is it together on the ground. all of it has been set through baghdad. the baghdads have proven they're unreliable. a new person on the top, a new face on the top. so what? entire structure of the shiite nt there, the gaggbaghdad, they're not friendly with the kurds. friends, the one we rely on make them dependent on

like them.don't i don't think the president's basic choices of who to back in work.ill not it's flawed. it won't work. host: guest, anthony from new york, democrats' side, go ahead. caller: good morning, thank you for the opportunity and thank ee eer esentative roar backer -- rohrabacher for spending time with us and field some questions. i would like to echo the first caller we've had. to expand on it. we done as a society or government to institute changes or laws to prevent contractors or services of the military/government to as dick cheney. dick cheney resigned the brown & rootellogg ceo six months prior, i believe, to the vice presidency of the united states.

then in a position to allow the 9/11 to occur then go to war. in business as eisenhower biggest fear-- the he had was the military the trial complex and inability to sell war. guest: i agree with eisenhower and with you on the idea that here is a military industrial complex. but i don't think that the negative outcome is that we are to war because we are being pushed into it by the people who want to make a profit. bs.t's just marxist and i know more and more people are being taught that. a big lieve there's problem there. because we are buying weapons systems that we don't need. weapons systems that are too expensive. we have this interaction. but that -- i do not believe hat the american citizens who

end up being in position of happen to be anging out with the defense establishment are sending our people into war, having our and people murdered they want toecause make a profit for the people i used to work for. that.'t believe i believe americans including dick cheney, i disagree with the ecisions, some of the major decisions that he made when it comes to war, i think he's a well -- he's a patriot. people.al to our however, with that said, we've a real problem in which people who work for our with ment who have ties the private sector or the efense section of our economy end up lobbying for weapons systems that are great -- they're wasteful. ended up with e is tributed the f-2 2

to that. and the weapons systems, spenter one of them -- we $100 billion with the two incredible airplanes. now they're dramatically cheaper and cost effective for us. there with that because was too much input by the military industrial complex. in the military, wanted to retire, go to work for the private sector companies and viles versa. the private sector companies that are influencing government. with the a problem military industrial complex. so i do not agree with you that people - we have then who served in our military who whonow part of this complex are pushing us into a situation

where americans are losing their -- lives. i don't believe they're that immoral. host: jim from new hampshire, independent line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. and the likes of senator sessions in the senate common sense ost making people that i see. could you please be good enough o explain to me how the congress could justify leaving on the recessaign to happen, all of n before with these things happening, who's going to be watching the stores, that can doonly one things. thank god we have that.

>>. our : we have a system in country, an elections system that requires us to go out and constituents. tlement know what policies we've advocating in washington. a month for us to get off and get out within the public specifically when they -- public is focused on the campaign. any other time you visit your aren't focused on washington, d.c. and people ee me around and we chat and everything like that. on, we n the campaign is need to make sure that members of congress are out the talking to people about what they getting the feedback and making sure, i would hope i try to lleagues and be honest with my students about what positions i'd taken and the then, to s a right, question you on that.

nd so i think this one-month before the election getting off is justified. host: for authorization of war against isis. should the president go to nahr?ss guest: yes. well, let me put it this way. to vote for a general authorization that the president had. we had basically acknowledged was dealing ident with a hostile force in the world. successful.m to be but the reason i voted against focused onday was it the $500 million, which is a lot money which we're borrowing from china, probably, to go to arm the free army. should arm eve we them. it's not a good choice.

i voted against that. limit to there a time the amendment that was passed to erday because it's tied the cr? then?appens guest: we can come back and do what we want again. congress can reverse itself. $500 million, the though i bet we will, that we have the vote that the saudis others should be picking up .hat tab created the y problem. now we're trying to fix it. it would be appropriate for them to pay the bill. independent n our line. guest: y -- agree with you, mr. representative, for not voting

for the bill. and i don't think that the be armed.uld happens if the rebels turn, what happens to the questions then. those are the things that i such a ink about for bill. guest: not that the rebels the fact that we don't know who they're going to target. we can't assure -- we want them isil and the horrible force that's been beheading our crucifying and murdering christians for not islam except for -- yeah, we want to make weaponsy're using their faction.king that many of them, large number of islamists dical themselves and said, we're going o use our weapons to attack assad. assad means us in terms of the united states, no harm.

saddambad guy, just like hussein was, but there was no us, again, to -- original h made the mistake of committing hundreds of thousands of americans in an first place the which created this chaos. there's no reason for us to take assad. just like there's no reason for hussein.ke out saddam and so we don't know if they're weapons use those against the radical islamic force that we intended as the target. host: kansas, republican line, david, go ahead, please. caller: good morning, sir, how are you? good morning. caller: i wanted to call your attention. right before you is marcy captor. a call from the republican who asked, with all weaponry that we know is

ossessed by middle east governments let alone that and enlists m, and he several with all of the troops they have, and they won't even to doing more than training at this stage. n the benghazi hearing, it so happens that adam smith was questioning about the militia that was contracted by our guard them. and how they turned on us. i that militia that was, assume, muslim, and had every

intention we thought to be on our side actually gave us up. in some cases, i won't go into benghazi hearing but in some cases, walked away. in some cases, assisted. to move cause we have on, what would you like our guest to address? caller: back to this, back to question? we're looking to associate the locals -- the whoever the locals are. the same exact moment in history are the hearings that re examining how a similar setup that this administration, not bush, got us into. thanks, caller. guest: first and foremost, i say that george w. bush did get us in in a dramatic way in to this calderon. republicans not to admit that's number nd

one. let's admit that. we should not have jumped in with the united states military with a huge occupation force change the situation. i would have certainly supported time arming the kurds gainst saddam hussein as i am supported now. you have to make sure very well that the people you're working are, number one, do not -- how do you m to -- a long-term reason hate you. they'll beathe end your enemy. it's true. and the number of areas in this that's one of the reasons i think we should rely on the kurds who have a long history of being friends of the united states. other forces at play there in the middle east.

there are friends that we should like israel, for example, atzer buy january is a think has proven itself to be a member of the united states. the air force there -- there are don't know.hat we the saudis have been arming our enemies for decades now. you know? arming the radicals that wanted want wanted to destroy and to conduct terrorist activities against americans. figureeed that -- when i out who to support and i'm sorry that the free syrian army make the grade. it's not there that we could be assured that the same thing is to happen that you just talked about in benghazi. host: patrick, up next. caller: first off, let me thank all of the representatives, congress, everybody that our forefathers put in this position andake care of our country, guide it -- thank you.

guest: you're welcome. caller: i understand you have one critical job. let me say this, given the fact we have double digit unemployment. we have hundreds of thousands in going homeless food, at what point in time do we say it's been over worried about everybody else's problems and say that's it. we're worried about our borders and our people. you tend to your own crap. that's it. we can't afford you anymore. guest: i -- caller: isn't it about time. uest: the point you're making is really -- it's much more significant than just the surface. there's a -- the essential we're supposed to be here of the american people safety of the me american people. there are too many people who get involve in the government

and they're here to fulfill some philosophical goals that they have that may or may ot be the ones that are in the specific interests of our -- of the safety of our people. think that the motives of his vision of the world that are of rseding just his vision the security for the united states. that's one of the problems here we've got and who we're going to ally with. now, having trouble right providing , with general cici in egypt. he's the president. the election. he overthrew a radical regime there. ut we know general cici, if he had in creating a stable ituation and a total return to

if that in egypt, terrorist wing of islam takes country, that will threaten the united states and the security of our own people. administration is in trouble even giving spare parts for the military. we have the idea that we have to the -- in iraq, this very issue we're talking about, we're the g all of the aid to kurds who are really and would be watching out that their interests are our interests. to give the money to baghdad. iran.ullah regime in hus we have to keep the president believes we have to

keep the borders the same. that's why we can't recognize kurds, all of the aid that we are giving to the force that's hostile to them politically. so, no, america should find out who our friends are, who will safety tribute to our and security, and go directly to them and work with them. look for a trying to bigger picture, representative rohr rohr back our guest. caller: i find it baffling you don't worry about assad killing people. you have no issues. if there's any radicalization occurred throughout the free syrian army that's because of the lack of involvement earlier in the civil peaceful p the uprising as it started as part of the arab spring. baffled goichlt --.

that's good. the arab spring resulted in a -- the stability and and democracy winter for approach.n for this caller om line is the before suggested we should be doing what is interesting in the american security. temporarily, yeah, assad moment --even at this and then, having assad taken out would have furthered the cause democracy. no doubt, he's a bad guy. but look, joseph stalin was a guy, but we actually allied adolf hitler st adolf hitler was the

biggest threat of safety and security. assad, he hasn't gotten a grudge united states, like saddam hussein didn't have a grudge against the united states. eliminating saddam hussein is what opened it up. harm, but will no fight those radicals who do mean crucifying are we should there so try to put him in the position the radical muslims who, by the way, will not bring their countrym to and will probably bring more murder and death than the assad regime itself. host: four minutes before the house gavels in and gavels out. biloxi, mississippi, go ahead. caller: i want to say something quickly. yesterday on pat sajak of wheel

gave a prize to a rip to vietnam to a guy was jumping for joy she was going to vietnam. e must remember, we lost thousands and thousands of americans. itself. repeats the islamic empire goes back generations. go up and they conquer many, many countries. regime so the catholics defeated them, this is going to go a long, long way. guest: i will have to tell you, talking about vietnam, i spent 1967.time in vietnam in i was not in the military, but i was in the war zone. the mountain herds for a while. and i walked away thinking this mistake that we

ver made was coming in with american troops on the ground to o the fighting for the locals in vietnam. going out.ces teams i thought it was a good idea. it was not a good idea for us to become the warriors in that area. we turned a lot of people off. we have outside troops like that carrying the load. we made the same mistake in iraq. hose were the two major mistakes. person who be the garrisons the world, and against force in the world. it's going to break our bank. people or the american to live their lives in freedom here and not be taxed or to lized and sent overseas have their sons and daughters murdered on behalf of someone and daughters unless it directly affects the security

of our country. republicans, i y might add, that do much of the complex.industrial that is too anxious to get -- to send our troops all over the orld and put our people in harm's way. local people. he wants to carry the load. in india, a new prime minister there wants to carry the load in world.art of the he's side with the people who want to carry their own load who are allies of ours. alliances with whoever will help us defeat without huge numbers of would eventually come and threaten our own security. president ukrainian will pad dress a joint session at 10:00 today. what are you expecting to hear them?