what the gentleman from nebraska has done is put together the commonsense ideas that have been agreed upon by both sides of the aisle, bipartisan votes, every one said, let's not let this year expire without doing those things we can do. agreeing on those things on which we can agree. mr. terry: may i interrupt you on that point for a second? when i'm back home and maybe you get this, we get input from our constituents. one of the most frequent ones is, why don't you do the bills that you do agree on? and in essence that's what this bill does. because we've had 30, 40, 50 democrats involved in the bills and voting for them, so this is an amalgamation of bipartisan bill, but yet we had less democratic support for today's bill than we did as individual bills. i think there is a little

bit of politics being played. mr. woodall: my friend from nebraska is the author of the act that passed with a bipartisan majority and it's in this package and in this underlying package and it is h.r. 2, the energy bill. but that very same language that my friend has authored and led through this house of in sentatives is included the study committee's package known as the jobs bill. jobs act. that collection of bills that will put americans back to work, that will grow the economy and do those things on the mind of every single american family. and we talk about energy issues as if they are separate from those issues. and what my friend talks about is that energy issues are job issues. energy issues are family issues. energy issues are issues to

every single american citizen and never before in my lifetime had i had the hope that we would get the hands that were around the american neck by those who supply us with energy. we have that opportunity. i was listening to my friend from indiana talk about coal. we are the saudi arabia of coal in america. and the administration is trying to tie the hands of the industry industry, not to exploit and i mean exploit in the best possible sense of the word, in the gross sense of the word, taking that off the table. that is not an environmental decision but a jobs decision and we feel that in each and every one of our districts. madam speaker, there are a lot of ways to run this institution. you can run this institution

with the iron fis tmp that says my way or the highway or commonsense ideas that speak to every american family. this is an election year and they think that brings out the worst in this body. what i want to say to you, under your leadership, under these bills that we see here tonight, these bills that were packaged in h.r. 2, that number in priority here in the house of representatives, what you are leading is that language, that bill, that opportunity that puts america first and being a republican or a democrat way, way down the list. i think that's what folks are looking for. i think good policy is good politics. doing the right thing for the right reason is better than having the right commercial at the right time and it matters to

me that we have leaders like you. you leading the hour and including me in and yielding me the time. mr. terry: i'm grateful you stayed you leading enough to sp and i appreciate the work and effort you do to secure america's future. in conclusion, that energy again is the cornstone of our economy. and sometimes we speak rather scientifically. we don't speak in the terms of how does it really affect me, not as a member of congress, but we represent 600,000 or 700,000 people in our districts. and what were we are trying to do is secure america's future. and if we focus on energy, we

secure it in so many different ways. i hear from my constituents that they are frustrated the increase of food prices in the grocery store, the continuous up-and-down swings of gasoline at the pump that costs per family for just transportation fuel has gone from 6% of their income to now 11.6% just in the last six years. those are the type of things that really make it more difficult for our families in our districts. encompassing lid, energy policy, helps alleviate those costs frustration of every family. many people will say, you talk about affordability and relie built.

how does it make things more affordable? well, if your electric bill is going to go up, if you have an existing power plant that can't meet the new rule where the plans have to be submitted in june of two 16. so what they'll have to do is either close that plant or invest -- some are talking from $100 to $500 million or more to comply to this rule. what do you think happens when at power district spends $00 million? they pass onto the consumers. your electric bills will go up. we met with our electric generators over the break and they told me that they are going to have to shut down some of the smaller power plants.

what happens to those communities? they can't invest $100 million or more, so they close them down and go onto the market and bid for the energy that's out there. but when you have a new report that just came out that they expect more power plants to close because of these rules, so when you have more communities in districts bidding against each other, the price is going to go up for that electricity as well. you kind of got it both ways. if you comply to the rule, you are going to raise costs. if you just close the power planlt, the rates are going to go up. we are trying to figure out a pathway where we don't have this level of disruption and price increases by these rules ap we are saying come forward with a

better rule and gives us more time so we don't make a financial impact to our families. with that, the bottom line here, madam speaker, is if we secure our own energy future, our country will continue to be the greatest country in the world. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind those in the gallery, my manifestation of approval or disapproval is against the rules of the house. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the entleman from florida is recognized for the designee. clause clause i would like to commend the gentleman from

ebraska and i believe that good-paying american jobs and in order for us to be competitive, e fleed a competitive energy and i support this bill clause clause i drive an automobile made by americans made in america. yesterday, i voted no on the proposal to train and arm syrian rebels. i did so because i'm convinced that we and our allies need to come together and unite among a much broader and very long-term plan with the goal of ending militant is lasm against the globe once and for all. in my opinion, anything less,

such as reacting crisis by crisis, is doomed to failure. to begin, we must accept the realities of the challenges we face and the generational nature of the threat. we can easily agree that isis today is the most visible threat extreme iism. we can all agree, isis must be eliminated. but motching forward, it would be a mistake, and i think a missed opportunity to focus solely on isis. isis is only one part of a widespread cancer of hatred, intolerance and violence. we are facing a cancer with sails under various names in

dozens of countries. in planning the elimination of isis, we, with the coalition of the willing, must do so, recognizing it as part of an overall global disease. ccess requires a broad and long-standing coalition committed to defeating the cancer once and for all. now america, is uniquely qualified to provide the leadership including the air power and mission command structure, but this time, the funding, military equipment and ground forces must be provided by others. too many times in the past, the united states has borne an extremely disproportionate part of these burdens. this time, it must be understood that u.s. forces are not going to be the combat boots on the

ground. nor will the american taxpayer be paying the bill. it's time our ally, especially the arab and muslim nations those most significantly and immediately threatened to step up. they need to step up and provide the ground forces that are needed. and coalition plans must be guided by an overarching strategic vision of a world someday, somehow free of militant islamism. that must be our cause. success will begin but not end with the containment, isolation d overtime, elimination of isis, whenever and whenever they arise. one by one, they must be eradicated around the world and

must be eradicated from the middle east, near east, subsahar eric.rth africa and south any cells or seeds of cancer in europe, the u.s. or elsewhere must also be eliminated. the coalition must also follow the money and take actions to alt all financing for militant jihaddists from banks, all receive news and state response oring terrorism. they must be behind a goal where oppression, intolerance, violence, brain washing and again side. give way to liberty, religious and opportunity for all. regardless of one's sex, faith or egget necessity. the coalition must also address the root causes of the cancer,

something we have been avoiding up until now. something that presents an additional challenge of monumental proportion. this means correcting conditions that are recruitment tools. impoverished areas, especially those with muslim populations must provide information, education, skills training and economic opportunities. to counter environmental conditions by radical jihaddists. these challenges are huge. handouts are not the answer in my view. the coalition must address these issues with the nations involved and with moderate muslim leaders, providing assistance wherever possible. the battle for the hearts and

minds must be won by moderation and opportunity. and rejection of extremist oices who offer hatred and bloodshed. we must condemn and combat militant jihads. moderates must be encouraged to speak out. this does require courage and as moderate muslims emerge, the coalition must stand ready to defend and support them begins those who would try to silence their voices. as with cancer in our bodies, the worst thing to do is to deny it, ignore it, minimize it, or hope it will just go away on its own, or fail to call it by its proper name. and when a cancer metastasizes,

we must accept that we cannot cut it out in one location. for decades, we've been fighting the cancer of militant islamism sort of like playing whack-a-mole. whenever an islamic threat pops up of radical nature, be it in the near east or the middle east, new york, london, sudan, southeast asia, or elsewhere, be it an organized effort or even a lone wolf, we react to it and try to smash it away. only to see another whack-a-mole pop up soon after in a different location. after decades of rising islamism, the middle and near east regions have seen leadership voids filled by islam exradicals. as despots are threatened or driven out by revolutions or

internal civil war the resulting voids are being filled by others, many of whom are bad players. often the new leaders are worse than those they repolice. transforming nations from totalitarian rule to a sustainable form of representative governance poses huge challenges as we have seen in recent years. this challenge will not end with the elimination of isis. am i overstating my concerns? i don't think so. i'm convinced that america must lead the civilized world in accepting the nature and breadth and complexity of tpwhrobal militant islamism and call it by etc. name and lead a coalition resolved to state the -- to stay the course and end this cancer once and for all. we must stop kicking this cancer down the road to jeopardize future generations. it is neither naive nor idealistic to suggest that the

world must unite behind the long-term goal of ending radical global militant islamism because the alternative is simply not acceptable. madam, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from california, mr. swalwell is recognized for 60 minute -- for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. swalwell: when it comes to climate change, we are facing a stark choice in america. we can do nothing and see if it happens. or we can do something, protect our children, and actually grow jobs and our economy. if you believe climate change is

not happening, if you're a denier of climate change, you do not need to listen any further. but i do have a wall that i'd like to put your name on. i call it the wall of climate denial. heck, let's put this wall on the national mall. and i'd like to invite all my colleagues across the aisle to putter that names on it. -- to put their names on it. that's whey our children and grandchildren can visit this wall decades from now and see for themselves who acted on climate change and who stood in the way. if we act, we can start to change course and that wall would only be a monument to a way of thinking that was on the wrong side of science. if we do not act, it will be a monument to those responsible for the massive loss of human life and economic productivity.

it will also be, if we do not act, likely a wall that is under water. global climate change is one of the greatest challenges that we face. and i agree with the previous speaker, there's no question one of the most immediate threats we face in our country right now is defeating and wiping from this earth isil. but one of the longest term threats to our own energy security and our existence is global climate change. last september, the intergovernmental panel on climate change released a report which states with a 95% certainty that human activities are responsible for climate change. this report was based on a rigorous review of thousands of scientific papers published by over 800 of the world's leading scientists, making it clear that if we do not act on climate cheage, if we don't take the necessary steps to halt this change, the repercussions for

humans across this globe and the environment will be catastrophic. we need to move forward now at this moment to take the necessary steps to combat the warming of our planet before these impacts become inevitable. i represent the east bay in california where people understand the effects of climate change and are willing to do whatever is necessary to take the beg steps, do the big things, take some risks, to address this and grow our economy. we're facing big energy challenges in this country and around our -- and around the world, but we know that our old, dirty methods are not sustainable. we know that the dynamics of the energy marketplace are shifting. far from being stagnant and hopeless, we are now seeing an unprecedented amount and an

unprecedented pace of change that was unpredictable even a few years ago. for instance, renewables are penetrating at a remarkable rate. with growth in wind alone outpacing natural gas in 2012. our responsibility is to make sure that our country is prepared for whatever changes the markets may experience. over reliance on a limited range of technologies and finite resources is unreasonable. we know that the united states consumes 25% of the world's oil. but at best, we only have 3% of the u.s. oil reserves. this is not a problem that we can drill our way out. that is only a short term bridge. our strength will lay in the ability of our ability to transition to a new, cleaner more sustainable resource energy future.

we must be competitive and not let ourselves get behind as washington big -- behind. as washington bickers, our competitors are moving out -- pulling out every imaginable step to capitalize on the booming energy economy. it's time to think about green energy policy to allow taos compete more globally. a recent article in the "new york times" over the weekend pointed out how far ahead our european friends are. germany will soon be getting 30% of their power from renewable sources. in contrast new york 2013, renewable sources of energy accounted for only about 10% in the united states energy consumption and 13% of electricity generation. are we any less capable than germany of harnessing the energy from the wind and the sun?

i believe, madam speaker, we are not. we are not less capable. but right now, we might be less willing. step one in addressing climate change is admitting that it's a problem. too often in washington, we see this false choice. this debate in a if we accept climate change as a problem, then it's going to kill jobs and we should do, therefore, nothing about it. but if we don't accept climate change as a problem, we'll never be singing off the same sheet of muse ex. once we sing off the same sheet of muse ex, we can take the steps necessary to address that climate change is, indeed a problem. there's overwhelming consensus across -- among scientists across our globe that it is a problem. here's what we know. is urrent warming trend

likely based on human induce activities. the heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases were demonstrated in the 19th century. ice cores pulled from antarctica and other places show changes in the earth's green house gas levels and show that in the past, large changes in climate happened very quickly, geologically speaking, in tens of year, not millions or or -- or thes. how about sea level rice? it rose about seven inches in the last century. as far as global temperature rise, all three major level -- all three major levels of global surface temperatures show that the earth has warmed since 18 0. most of this warming occurred since 1970 with 20 of the warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with 10 of the

warmest years occurring in the past 12. the oceans are also rising and warming. the oceans -- ocean that absorbs much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters of ocean showing a warming of 0.02 degrees fahrenheit since 1969. extreme events. the numb of record high temperature -- the number of record high temperature events in the united states is increasing while the number of record lows has been decreasing since 1950. the u.s. has also witnessed ncreasing numbers of intense wind events. once we accept that -- rainfall events. once we accept that this is occurring, we have to decide do, we do nothing or do we do something? i submit to america, if we do something, not only can we address climate change, save the

world, protect our children, we can actually create jobs. my district is home to several businesses and initiatives that are fighting to green our economy and combat global warming but that are also economically successful. in my district, we have a rogram called igate. it specializes in growing green technology startups. with a network that includes two national laboratories, lawrence livermore and sandia national laboratories, with over 7,000 scientists, investors and advisors and leading universities and corporate partner, igate has created a unique ecosystem for growing startups that are working to address our biggest energy challenges. the startups that igate incubates are working to create better lithium-ion batteries prorkvide region and crop-specific information to farmers on how climate change

could change and affect their crop revenue and create low-cost diagnostics to screen for life-threatening diseases. we also have an interesting company i had the opportunity to isit, soleria, technology -- soleria technologies in hayward, california. they're pioneering the use of chemicals made from clean, abundant natural gas and renewable methain. they've demonstrated -- methane. they've demonstrated how it can be employeed to produce gasoline. paving the way to produce liquid fuels in 2017. this yearing they unveiled a first of its kind development for producing cleaner fuels from natural gas and methane. this is an important milestone in moving forward. it represents the last scaleup step prior to their platform technology. then there's ultra cell.

jane cashmitter a former employee of lawrence livermore, founded the company in livermore, california. they're designated as a veteran-owned small business making compact, high power, off grid portable power. i also want to tell you the store roif a small business in dublin, california. i visited when they put solar panels on their rooftop a few weeks back. now their business owner is admittedly a pretty conservative guy. so i asked him, i said, you're putting solar on your rooftop. you know, solar is often affiliated with addressing climate change and investing in renewables and sometimes constin't always agree with that. well, the business owner told me, eric, this is going to reduce my energy bill, which is about the equivalent cost of a supermarket, by hundreds of

he used cool earth solar year. which came out of our national laboratory. they used federally-funded research dollars that were put into our national laboratory and transferred that out to the private market and created this technology that a small conservative business owner is using in my district to save money and create more jobs. we can green the economy, protect the world for our children. into a lar went private-public partnership. sandia national laboratories are testing and helping to bring to market which uses cheaper and fewer materials that is more

affordable and they can save money and create more jobs. then there is the two national laboratories, sandia national laboratory is home to the combustion research facility. it is a public-private partnership and i stress the public-private partnership because the federal government cannot do this alone. we can spend the money on the basic research to get this to the marketplace but we need committed actors to make this successful. it is a public-private collaboration with general motors, exxonmobil and cat pillar. it focused on the advanced combustion strategy required by energy to develop high efficiency clean engines. there is the lawrence-livermore

national laboratory and home of the national ignition facility. is the largest and most energetic confinement facility built to date and largest laser in the world. it hold the promise of providing a limitless supply of clean energy to the world. across the country, there are other national laboratories including argon. this world class research is working towards developing new technologies that move beyond lithium batteries and store five times of today's batteries at 1/ the cost. feed stock demonstration unit and look at this across america,

different laboratories are harnessing their resources. they are testing feedstock, collecting process data and producing larger quantities for conversion testing a key step to getting a new biofuel to the market. there's also very interesting ventures across america taking place in a bipartisan way to address climate change. launched in october, 2013, the risky business project focuses on publicizing the economic risks from the impacts of a changing climate. risky business was co-chaired by a bipartisan group of leaders, paulsen, bloomberg and sire. it has found that our economy is vulnerable to risks to climate change and the current path will only make these risks work.

climate change is our planet's way of charging compound interest. they find the longer we wait to pay down our climate debt, the more it will cost the american economy. there is no such thing they find as business as usual and the only path forward for businesses and individuals is to act now to reduce these risks. their assessment found if we act immediately, we can still avoid some of the worst impacts and reduce the costs of catastrophic impact but only if we change our policies. they are calling on american leaders in business and individually in their home to get into the game, getting into the game of climate investment. america's businesses are rising to the challenge. and we must do more now.

this is not a problem for another day. the investments that we're making today, this week, this month, this year, will determine our economic future. they point to short-term problems and long-term problems. in the short-term, we are going to see the coast of coastal property and infrastructure. higher sea levels with a storm surge will increase the cost along the eastern cost and gulf .f mexico by $2 billion adding in hurricane activity, the likely increase in annual losses grows to $7. billion. california is the largest agriculture state in the country. a defining characteristic is the ability to adapt. but the adapttation challenge going forward for farmers in

specific countries -- in specific counties in the midwest and the south will be significant. some midwestern and southern counties could see a decline in yields of more than 10% over the xt 10 years to 25 years in soy, cotton and corn with yield losses of more than 20%. and most importantly, in energy. greenhouse-driven changes in temperature will nikely necessitate the construction of 95 gigawatts of new generation capacity, the equivalent of 200 coal or natural-gas-fired power plants, causing rate pairs up to $12 billion a year. there is the large-scale losses. if we continue on this current path by 2050, between 66 billion

and $106 billion worth of property, with $238 billion with property below sea level. so who is standing in the way of climate change action? we know who they are. we know this family. koch industries spent over $25 million in campaign contributions by the end of 2013. they have spent over $84 million in lobbying up to 2013. americans for prosperity does not have to fully disclose spending because it is a

not-for-profit entity. the koch brothers have funneled money to groups who deny climate . ange the koch brothers run oil refineries and control thousands of miles of pipeline and giving them a financial stake in the fossil fuel industry. koch-owned flint hill resources owns refineries in alaska, minnesota and process crude oil. the company owns a 3% stake, 4,000 miles of oil and products pipeline in the united states and 80,000 barrels per day. in addition, koch industries held multiple leases on the polluting tar sands of canada since the 1990' and it operates

the pipelines that carry the tar sands from canada into minnesota where they own oil refineries. it is time we have real campaign finance reform. time that we pass a constitutional amendment that reverses the decision insight sense united and take the influence that koch industries has on policy makers to standing up for climate change. it's also time that we end this false debate. let's accept that climate change is truly happening. let's believe in the science, the overwhelming majority of scientists who accept that it is happening. let's move past that debate. once we move past that debate, let's have the real debate. what do we do next? how do we address climate change

without killing jobs in america? how do we invest in our own energy resources. it's often said well, if the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, there isn't much you can do with renewables. there is great research taking place to belter store renewables, to use fuel sforge methods for our renewables. let's look at better investments and fuel storage renewables. we have a unique opportunity in this country to do something. the costs of doing nothing is too great. the cost of doing nothing means leaving our children a future that is more insecure, the cost of doing nothing means spending more money in defense, because

we don't have our own energy resources that we can draw from, making us more vulnerable to people who are not our allies. the cost of doing nothing means our entire planet could one day be under water. we have an opportunity to do something. we can green our economy. we can create jobs. mill district is not unique. there are great minds across this country who can answer this call for action. there are great minds who can create jobs in every district in this country through wind, solar, fuel storage and other alternatives to dirty fossil fuels. of-the-above an all- approach. if we don't look forward as our

ally germany is doing, 30% renewable consumption by the end of 2014. 30%. we don't look forward in that way, we will pay a steep, steep price. so let's build that climate wall. i hope there aren't many names on it. let's build that wall of climate denial. if you truly believe we should do nothing, if you believe the answer is to just cover our eyes , put your fingers in our ears, ry our heads in the sand and reject all the science, that wall will likely be under water. but america is too great. america has always responded to changing science and has always harnessed our own resources.

i believe we can seize on this opportunity, we can green and leave a better planet for our children. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, is recognized for 30 minutes. mr. smith: thank you, madam speaker. last week, congressman trent franks and i had an important leader ith the former of the islamic leader. he is a recognized and renowned peace, a leader in interreligious dialogue. in 2008, he led the muslim delegation to the catholic-islamic forum and did that kind of work on many

occasions. last week we talked about bosnia and conflict and the genocide, about where bosnia is today and where it needs to go. i would like to share with my colleagues what he had some say. the doctor updated us on bosnia's struggle to hold itself together, build an economy and integrate into nato and the european union. he talked about a country where 17 years after the horrific genocide and the dayton peace accords, ethnic divisions remain strong and many ways have hardend. they classify people into one of three ethnic communities. kroad and a or system that diminishes the

rights of anyone including jews and roma. only those can be elected to the legislature. the house of peoples or to the presidency. this embedded discrimination is a legacy of the dayton peace accords. while this design was probably necessary at the time to stop the genocide and aggression, in today's time in expanding europe, it violates our basic values of freedom and equality. all people are not equal, entire segments of the population are excluded from full political participation. the dayton peace accords were a tourniquet to end the genocidal

conflict in 1995. however, that is all they were really intended to be. dayton was never intended to operate as bosnia's constitution. certainly, not for 19 years. as a result of dayton's severe limitations on its democracy, bosnia cannot be fullient grated into euro-atlantic structures. without amending the dayton accords to respect basic human rights and political rights of one person, one vote, bosnia will never be a candidate for the european union. so a question mark hangs over bosnia's future as ethnic activists continue to agitate to partition the country and daily threat to se -- daily threat ton secede, taking large swaths of ethnically cleansed territories with them. such actions might lead to further hostility which would

further aggravate the condition of mis-- what further aggravates the condition is a campaign of misinformation and denial. the president of the republic of serbska is publicly calling for naming public squares and roads and boulevards after indicted perotvich.ls such as there's no way for bosnia to be fully democratized. significant -- insignificant leadership by -- significant leadership by bosnian leaders will be necessary to break through the stalemate created by ethnic interests. the united states must do its part to ensure the bosnian dream of a robust democracy, respect for the fundamental human rights, and the rule of law is

reached. i respectfully submit that delay is denial and that the bosnians the serve better. madam speaker, the united states has a special responsibility to bosnia. we could have done more for them in the 1990's. i know. i was here. i held hearing after hearing, traveled to the former yugoslavia repeatedly, joined by other colleagues like frank wolf, trying to get this country to stand up and assist those who were being victimized by an invasion. instead, we left it to the europeans in the 1990's and unfortunately, it was a train wreck. we could have lifted the arms embargo on bosnia earlier, which may have prevented the genocide. i would note parenthetically that i was the sponsor of legislation to lift the egregiously flawed arms embargo that hintered both the croats

and bosnians' ability to defend against aggression. only after the tragic end -- tragic and preventable genocide in early july, 1995, and thanks to the leadership of some of us in the house and senate, did our government swing into action and broker the peace deal. bosnians, madam speaker, of every ethnicity and faith look to the united states to help move the country forward. i agree with -- i agree that without american leadership and help to replace the dayton accords with a democratic constitution, the situation will likely fester and get worse. in the 1990's, throughout the darkness of the balkan war, ray sturge was a powerful, persistent, reasonable, and dynamic voice for peace, human

-- for peace, human rights, the rule of law and accountability for genocide. ray is a good friend of mine and truly an inspiring man of god. madam speaker, i'd like to address another issue before the house today. five years ago, about five feet from where i'm standing right now, president obama told lawmakers and the american public at a specially called joint session of congress on health care reform that, quote, under our plan, he said, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion. that was september 9, 2009. in an 11th hour ploy to garner support from a remnant of pro-life congressional democrats, absolutely needed for passage of obamacare the president issued an executive

order on march 24, 2010, that said, and i quote, the act, the affordable care act, that is -- maintains current hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges. turns out, madam speaker, that those iron clad promises made by the president himself are absolutely untrue. agree or disagree with public funding of abortion and a significant majority of americans oppose it. but no one likes to be misled. and today, as i think many of my colleagues know, a growing number of americans are recognizing that abortion is violence against children and hurts women. abortion methods rip, tear, and

dismember or chemically poison the fragile bodies of unborn children. there is nothing benign, compassionate, or just about an act that utterly destroys a baby and often physically, psychologically, or emotionally harms the mother. at etc. core, madam speaker, and this has been missed by many, especially in the media, the hyde amendment has two parts. it prohibits funding for abortion, but it also prohibits funding for any insurance plan that includes abortion. except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. remember, the president stood here and then in his executive order said that the act maintained the hyde amendment. -- hyde amendment restrictions governing abortions and extends those abortions to the newly created health insurance exchanges. that's what the executive order

said. yet now we know that is absolutely untrue. a comprehensive general accountability office report released this week documents massive new public funding for abortion in the president's new health care law. like so many of the president's promises that litter the political landscape, g.o. -- g.a.o. has found that in 2014, taxpayers are funding over 1,000, let me repeat that, 1,000 obamacare health plans that subsidize abortion on demand, even late-term abortion, decimating the hyde amendment that the president said he would honor. again if you fund the insurance plans, the purchase of a plan, it is a violation of the hyde amendment that the president said that he would extend to the newly created health insurance exchanges. according to the general

accountability office, in their findings, every obamacare taxpayer funded health insurance plan in my own state of new jersey, connecticut, vermont, rhode island, and haye -- and hawaii pays for abortion on demand. in new york, a whopping 405 out of 426 obamacare plans subsidize abortion on demand. in california, it's 86 plans out of 90. in massachusetts, 109 out of 111. in oregon, 92 out of 102. in washington, 23 of the 34 plans. and so it goes. according to the congressional budget office or c.b.o., their april, 2014 estimate, madam speaker, between 2014 and 2024, taxpayer subsidies to buy obamacare health plans will otal $855 billion.

making taxpayers unwittingly, wherever they live, complicit in abortion. g.a.o. has also found that even in account -- even an accounting trick embedded in obamacare requiring premium players to be assessed a separate monthly i a-- monthly abortion surcharge is being pleatly ignored. the surcharge would have added some modicum of transparency so individuals would know whether they are purchasing a pro-life or pro-abortion health insurance plan. senator ben nelson of nebraska summed up the plain mean, absolutely plain meaning of the law, when he said, quote, you have to write two checks. one for the abortion coverage, one for the rest of the premium. according to g.a.o., none of the 18 insurance companies they

interviewed are billing the abortion surcharge separately. none. so much for the rule of law. last year, members of congress in in -- members of congress and some staff were barred from any further par tesspation in the federal employees health benefit plan and compelled onto obamacare exchanges. after months of misinformation, obfuscation, and delay, i finally learned that of the 112 plans offered on the exchange for my family, 103 of those plans pay for abortion on demand. a clear violation of the smith amendment. a hyde-like amendment that i first sponsored on this floor back in 1983. it has been the law of the land for all of these years except for two years during the clinton administration. madam speaker, americans throughout the country have raised very serious questions

that they find it nearly impossible to determine whether the plan that they are purchasing finances and subsidizes the killing of unborn children. there is little or no transparency. hence the request by several members of congress, including our distinguished speaker, speaker boehner, that the general accountability office, investigate. as the november 15 open enrollment approaches for obamacare, we have no reason now to believe that the president's promise of the most transparent government in history will give consumers base exinformation about the abortion coverage. first, we were told it wouldn't be in there. again a promise made right from this podium, madam speaker. and then by way of executive order, and now we can't even find out clearly and unmistakably which plans include

abortion and which do not. to end president o-- president obama's massive new funding of abortion on demand, madam speaker, last january, the house of representatives passed my bill a totally bipartisan bill, overwhelmingly known as the -- as the no taxpayer funding for abortion and the abortion full disclosure act. madam speaker, when our friend and colleague on the other side of this building, harry reid, was a member of the house, he was as pro-life as henry hyde. now the senate majority leader as refused to allow h.r. 7 and its companion bill offered by senator wicker to come up for a vote. so with respect to the distinguished senator, and on behalf of the weakest and the most vulnerable, the unborn children and those who will be hurt by abortion, their moms, i

respectfully ask that he reconsider and post the legislation for a vote. i yield back the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall is recognized for 30 minutes. mr. woodall: madam speaker, i appreciate the recognition, i appreciate you staying with me into the evening tonight. i wish i could tell you i was bringing you good news but i'm bringing you bad news. it's bad news that you have already heard. i have the most recent tax foundation rankings of international tax competitiveness. we talk so much about jobs and

the economy, we talk about how to make a difference in the lives of middle class families, we talk about jobs that are moving overseas, we talk about whether or not we're going to grow this economy. this is the ranking of the most competitive tax codes in the country. i want you to think about what those things are we can do to be more competitive in this country. we could lower everyone's wages, that would make it cheaper to build things in this country. i think that's an awful idea. we could ignore environmental regulations. that would make things easier to -- and cheaper to build in this country. but that's an awful idea. one of the things we could do, though, is deal with our tax system. a tax system that so says the tax foundation, is the 32nd worst tax system of the 34 countries. 32nd