phone lines on capitol hill. host: you can find this report on their website. thank you very much. now, and we will take you to the house of representatives. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., january 13 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable charles j. fleischmann to act

as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now rec m fm stsuitd the mari my lea f mni hr te. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each mber the mari a mory leaderanmi w limit tfi mut, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, five mis. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much mr. speaker.

as an 8-year-old child, i was forced to flee havana, cuba, with a my family for the shores of the united states of america, the shining city on a hill, and a beacon of hope and freedom to the world. the cuban american members of congress are all united by our love of this great country and our love and respect for freedom, for democracy and the rule of law because of where we come from and whom we represent. for us, these principles aren't concepts that we take for granted. we cherish them because we know the alternative. we need look no further than just 60 miles south of the united states to see the alternative, where the castro regime has been entrenched for over 55 years and ruling the island with an iron fist. this is berto, one of the leaders of ladies in white, and she's been detained so many times she says to me, she's lost count and that's why we

stand united in steadfast opposition by any attempts by the obama administration to normalize relations with the castro regime. president obama's audacity of human being russ has resulted in one exercise in folly after another and engagement with cuba is the height of that folly. what have we gotten in return? let me turn to the next poster. this is a list of some of the many wanted criminals who have sought refuge and who have gotten it in castro's cuba. we haven't gotten any reforms from this deal and we haven't gotten the returns of dozens of these criminals that castro has been harboring because they fled from justice in america. like convicted new jersey state trooper killer jo ann ceesamard. she -- after the deal was

announced, castro regime said, oh no, all of these people, we'll give them asylum. the f.b.i. has put her on the most-wanted terrorist list and yet castro says, we'll give them asylum. and what have the cuban people received as a result of this administration's concessions? well 53 political prisoners supposedly were released, mr. speaker. like some of these activists who are rounded up in a catch and release program of the castro regime. this list of 53, the administration hails as a victory, ignoring the fact that hundreds of political and anti-regime activists, like these, were arrested and detained immediately before and after the announcement of the changes and almost 2,000 people were arrested or detained last year alone. this infamous list of 53 that has been praised by this administration and the castro regime is another reuss.

over a dozen individuals on that list were released prior to the december 15 announcement including this person, carlos perez. he was released over one year ago. some were arrested even before june. catch and release is the new program, the new playbook of the castro regime and obama deliberately has fallen for that ruse. now the regime will feel embolden because the u.s. has signed off on the mistreatment of its citizens and president obama has extended an economic lifeline to the regime that will allow it to continue this repression. before there can be any discussion of changing our policy toward cuba, mr. speaker, all political prisoners must be released, not this fake list of 53. fair and multiparty elections must be held and the fundamental human rights of every cuban must be respected. mr. speaker, i warn my colleagues to pay close attention to what the obama administration is attempting to do in cuba because this will

track with its attempts at reconciliation with iran another rogue nation, a state sponsor of terrorism. the administration's efforts in cuba have been the test case for iran and the two have paralleled each other. while the administration was holding secret talks with the castro regime, we know that he was penning secret leaders to iran's supreme leader and conceding to iran the right to enrich uranium. these concessions to cuba are just a tip of the iceberg and it will open the doors to similar measures in iran where the supreme leader sees what's happening in cuba and says, hey, we can get away with that as well. both have consequences to our national security as our nations see that we lack the courage of our convictions and they will be willing to test us. nicholas ma dura says, we'll exchange lopez who, maduro,

has imprisoned in venezuela for one of the criminals imprisoned here in the united states. think want to test us. they want -- they want to test us. they want to see what they can get for holding innocents in prison. look at the appeasements this nation has given to russia. they'll continue to act with impunity and our allies have turned away with us because instead of working with our allies we have been appeasing our enemies. so mr. speaker, in closing, i'd like for this congress to take a close look at that list of 53 prisoners and remember that even if that were a true list which it is not, it is not about 53. it is about freedom for all political prisoners, some of whose names we will never know. thank you mr. speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, for five minutes. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, we

are now in our sixth month of war against isis. and make no mistake about it, we are at war in iraq. though i do not recall a debate or a vote in this chamber authorizing that. i would respectfully remind the president, who is well versed in constitutional law, of something he already knows but appears unwilling to address. the executive is not permitted under the articles of constitution to unilaterally authorize military action in a situation that does not constitute an immeant threat. there is no doubt that isis is a deprafed and repugnant organization but our intelligence community has repeatedly said it does not imminently threaten the united states. and even if that assessment were to change following the horror we witnessed in paris we would still need a clear

authorization and a serious debate about yet another american war in iraq. i and several of my colleagues in both chambers have been calling for such a debate since last august. in november, the president said he intended to work with the congress to craft a new authorization for the use of military force, or an aumf, in the anti-isis campaign. before it adjourned last year, the senate foreign relations committee drafted and passed a new if vague aumf, against the islamic state of iraq and the levant. mr. speaker, the 113th congress abrogated its responsibility to acknowledge that the ongoing military campaign in iraq and syria cannot be sustained on the back of war powers notifications of two outdated aumf's. the start of this new congress is a perfect time to actually

do something about this urgent need by debating and voting on something required of us six months ago. over 3,000 american troops have been deployed to retrain iraqi army brigades that will allegedly be the new and improved force to take over against isis. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff declined to say over the weekend how long this training would take, so the prime minister of iraq volunteered to guess. three years. three years, which seems awfully optimistic. iraq may be able to rebuild and restructure its military. does this mean three more years of coalition air strikes, even if we even have a coalition by then? does that mean three more years of military advisors to train forces that will never be ready? does that mean three more years of american troops set out to reoccupy those deprepped bases

that serve as a stark reminder 10 years ago we went to iraq without a strategy? mr. speaker, a-- apparently the reading on the constitution on the house floor last week was gratuitous since congress has no intention of following a key section of the constitution. when it comes to war and peace mr. speaker, the authority remains firmly with the congress. yet, we have sent our country's sons and daughters to war without a new bill. a serious debate or a proper vote. where is our sense of priority, reading the constitution or obeying it? where is our sense of responsibility? we have already had six months of unilateral war against isis. another three years is intolerable. mr. president -- mr. speaker, it's up to you to invite the president to come up here and

address this house, all 535 members of congress, to tell us what he needs and what he's decided is worth the sacrifice. it cannot be done it should not be done without an authorization from this congress. and to fail to do that is eroding to the very constitution that we say we support in this house. we have a civilian control of the military, not by one man, but by 435 members of congress. that's the way it's supposed to work. we need to have this debate now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. costello, for five minutes. mr. costello: thank you mr. speaker.

i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, we were sent to washington by our constituents to work together to encourage accountability, transparency and limited government. bigger government does not necessarily mean more responsive government, but it has come to mean more costly government. when our small businesses and entrepreneurs, the backbone of our economy are forced to divert resources to costly new mandates, it means less capital for growing their business, less capital to hire more employees, less money to raise employee wages. two statistics to me jump out. first, 64% of new jobs created in this country in the past 15 years have been through small businesses. last year alone, new regulations cost our economy $67 billion.

we're going to be dealing with several regulatory reform measures this week bipartisan pieces of legislation that will modernize the federal rulemaking process and put more power back in the hands of job creators. we need to help those who are too often squeezed by regulation the most, small businesses. we need to give them a larger voice in the process. we need to be a country that continues to welcome new ideas and innovation not a nation that overregulates from washington and inhibits our full economic potential. i look forward to forthcoming regulatory reform measures, to help streamline our government, get washington out of the way, bring stability and certainty to small businesses and help grow our economy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i have come to the floor today to give a voice to those who are hungry. to share their struggles and challenge my house colleagues to take meaningful action to end hunger now. last week the center on budget and policy priorities released a troubling new report estimating that roughly one million unemployed americans will be cut off from snap benefits over the course of 2016. the report anticipates that those affected will lose between 150 and $200 per person per month in food benefits. cuts that will cause serious hardship. mr. speaker, this is shameful and it deserves our attention. we should be working to end hunger now not making it worse. the 1996 welfare law limits individuals, aged 18-50, who are not disabled or caring for young children to three months of snap

benefits in any 36-month period if they aren't employed or in a work training program for 20 hours or more a week. sounds reasonable but when jobs and job training aren't available, it isn't so reasonable. during times of high unemployment governors can request a waiver to the three-month time limit for the state. during the great recession governors both republicans and democrats in 46 states have requested and have been granted some type of waiver from the three-month time limit. this enabled unemployed adults to continue to look for a job in a tough job market without going hungry. mr. speaker, our economy continues to improve and unemployment rates across the country are falling. but we are not out of the woods yet. and the most vulnerable among us those with limited education and skills, continue to struggle to find work. in october, 201 the center on budget and policy priorities estimated there were two

unemployed workers for every available position. by that measure even if any unavailable job were filled by an unemployed individual, there would still not be jobs for those who needed one. when the current waiver expires the problem is most states offer few if any job training programs. they aren't required to do so. in states that do offer work programs, the number of individuals who need them far outnumber the available slots. come 2016 an unemployed adult actively looking for work, no matter how many job postings they respond to or resumes they send out will arbitrarily be cut off from receiving food benefits through no fault of their own. the three-month time limit as it is drafted is a severe penalty that hurts an already vulnerable population. according to usda data, those who would be affected have an

average monthly income of over 19% of the poverty line. they often to not even qualify for any other types of assistance. mr. speaker it is unconscionable that one million of the poorest americans would be cut off from food benefits because their state does not offer job training programs or does not have the capacity to meet the demand for those who need help improving their skills. these individuals would be left on their own at an already difficult time. they may be forced to choose between food and rent or other necessities. mr. speaker, we need to adequately fund our job training programs which this congress has consistently failed to do. and we need to ensure that unemployed adults who are diligently searching for jobs do not go hungry while they look for work. i am concerned, deeply concerned about reports that republican leaders want to launch yet another assault against snap. they want to cut the program

even more. that would be a mistake. and a disservice to one of the most efficiently and effectively run federal programs. even more important, it would be a disservice to so many of our citizens who are struggling in poverty. mr. speaker, i'm also concerned about a republican majority that's more interested in adhering to a political sound bite than in pursuing sound policy. let's focus on ending hunger and ending poverty. let's bring to the end the nasty, cruel and negative rhetoric that's been used to demagogue snap and those who rely on the benefit that was evident in the last congress. it is tough to be poor in america. it is hard work. we in congress should be part of the swlution not part of the problem. -- solution not part of the problem. we can do better. we can and should do more to end hunger now. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. green for five minutes.

mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm proud to say that i stand at the podium today to thank two members of congress who on last week took the lead on lead. lead is law enforcement appreciation day. i want to thank congresspersons jolly and reichert for what they did on last friday in paying a special tribute, if you will, to the 900,000-plus who serve us as peace officers in the united states of america. i'm very proud to say that in my family i had an uncle who was a peace officer, and he had an influence on my life that literally changed the course of my life and set me on the course that i currently am pursuing. my you cannle -- uncle and i

were riding along together and i was asking a lot of questions, and he made a statement that became indelible with me. he said, this boy is asking so many questions, i think he's going to be a lawyer. i was younger than 10. i don't think i knew what a lawyer was. i'm not sure how old i was. i remember i was very young. but i also remember that if my uncle thought that being a lawyer was a good thing for me then that was the thing that i should do. this was a peace officer, a police officer, deputy sheriff that had a lasting impact on my life. and i'm so grateful for his service to his community and the way he has been an outstanding citizen in his community. his name is dallasates. -- dallas yates. i'm proud to tell you that when i saw these congresspersons paying tribute to police

officers peace officers, i concluded i would have to add to the record some thoughts because there is a phrase that we use quite often when it -- reference peace officers. it is styled in the line of duty, in the line of duty. and officers do so many things in the line of duty. some of these things quite frankly are not things that they are expected to do, but they do them anyway. "the washington post" reported that two officers delivered a baby on christmas day in the line of duty. they were on duty when they did it. officers are not trained to deliver babies, but when called upon, they take the lead to do what needs to be done. think of the thousands of people who have been stranded and who are helped by peace officers. flood victims helped by peace

officers. persons with something as simple as a flat tire, helped by police officers. all in the course and scope of their duty. and then of course we have officers who have literally gone into fires to save lives. it's been reported that officers have done this. in fact the tulsa world recently reported that an officer saved a life from a fire in the line of duty, in the course and scope of duty. but that phrase means a lot more than simply helping -- lending a helping hand. in the line of duty means sometimes that officers lose their lives. in this country we have 27 officers that died 2013 as a result of felonious incidents, all occurring if the line of duty. we had 49 that died from accidents in the line of duty. and when this term is used now in the line of duty to refer to

these officers who make the ultimate sacrifice so that others may have a better life, you have greater appreciation for what in the line of duty means. more than mere words. it means sacrifice. many families have had to mourn the loss of a loved one in the line of duty. so i'm proud to salute the officers, the 900000 plus. i thank the congresspersons who led the discussion celebrating and appreciating and commemorating those who have served and some who have gone on to make their transitions in the line of duty. and i think it appropriate to close with these words that express some thoughts about how we measure our lives.

and how the life of a person is measured and appreciated. ruth smeltser reminds us that some measure their lives by days and years. others by heartthrobs, passions and tears. but the surest measure under god's sun is what for others in your lifetime have you done. i want to thank the 900,000-plus officers for what they have done for others in their lifetime in the line of duty. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. the momentum for an increase in the federal gas tax continues to build. this weekend's excellent "new york times" editorial made the case why the increase is needed and long overdue. costs to repair increase dramatically the longer they are delayed. in the meantime, americans pay billions of dollars for

congestion wasted gas and repairing damage to their cars and thousands of lives are lost due to unsafe roads. this followed an editorial in the "washington post" making the same arguments that "usa today," "l.a. times," and a variety of newspapers across the country. recently we have seen eight senators who have identified stepping up being either supporting a gas tax or at least being open to it. we have seen leadership at the state level as eight states in the last two years have increased gas taxes including some very red states like wyoming and new hampshire. here in the house there's already 136 members who have signed a bipartisan letter urging the leadership to act on providing appropriate funding that is sustainable and dedicated. well, we to have a solution. this issue has been studied extensively including two presidential commissions during the bush administration. the conclusion was that there's no better more effective

solution than simply raising the gas tax. which hasn't been increased in 22 years. people know america's falling behind as it's falling apart. the concern about the financial impact of a gas tax increase on families is waning as gas taxes -- gas prices plummet. my corner gas station is selling gasoline $1.60 per gallon less than its peak last year. i will be reintroducing the funding proposal i had in the last congress. that legislation was widely supported by a range of interests that included labor, business, professions, local government, transit environmentalists, truckers and triple-a and cyclists. they all agreed, there is a critical need to fund investments in rebuilding and renewing america. the arguments today are basically the same that were used by president ronald reagan

in his thanksgiving day address in 1982. he used that nationwide radio speech 33 years ago to call for an increase that more than doubled the federal gas tax. he pointed out that that tax is actually a user fee who benefit for the -- for people who benefit from using it. that the user fee would cost less than the damage to repair their cars from damage due to poor conditions from roads and bridges. as president reagan said, it would probably be less than a pair of shock absorbers. he pointed out that the gas tax then as now has not been raised in more than two decades. and that repairing infrastructure that is failing would put hundreds of thousands of people to work while it protected the investment in our infrastructure as well as in our automobiles. mr. speaker it's time for congress to step up. the states are doing their part. people are exploring innovative

financing approaches involving the private sector. people are looking at creative ways to design and build projects. but there is no substitute for the 25% of infrastructure funding that comes from the federal partnership. it's absolutely essential for projects that are multiyear, projects that are multimodal, and that involve a number of jurisdictions, often a number of states. this may we face the expiration of the short-term highway trust fund fix from last summer. we are back in the exact same situation we were then. failing to address the funding issue head on has meant that we haven't had a six-year re-authorization approved by congress since 1997. since then we have had two ever shorter re-authorizations and 21 temporary extensions. over $60 billion of general fund

money has been needed to just prop up our inadequate system. mr. speaker, no country has become great planning and building its infrastructure six months at a time. it's time to capitalize on falling oil prices on the momentum that is building around the country, and the realization that we need to act now. i strongly urge my i strongly urge my colleagues to join me and president reagan in this long overdue action. the country will be better off, the economy will be stronger, neighborhoods livable and our families healthier and more economically secure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi, for five minutes. mr. pierluisi: mr. speaker last week i spoke about puerto rico's mission to discard its

status as a u.s. territory and to become a u.s. state. today, i rise to inform my colleagues about the most recent face of this mission -- phase of this mission. a brief word of background. puerto rico has been a territory since 1898. its status is incompatible with the principles this nation strives to uphold at home and promotes abroad. there are 3.6 million american citizens in puerto rico. my constituents cherish their u.s. citizenship and have made countless contributions to this country in law science, business, government, the arts, the armed services and every other field of human endeavor. yet, they cannot vote for president, have no u.s. senators and send one delegate

to the house who has a voice but no vote in this chamber. the people of port week, beyond lacking democratic rights are deprived of equality under law. congress has the license to discriminate against the territories and puerto rico is treated worse than the states on the arranged of federal programs. to compensate for the shortfall in federal funding, the puerto rico government has borrowed heavily in order to provide adequate public services. this treatment is the principal reason why puerto rico has endured severe economic problems for decades. inequality, both political and economic, is driving thousands of my constituents to depart for the states every month. it's human nature to go where you believe you can secure a better future for yourself and

your family. however, residents of puerto rico have finally said enough is enough. they demand the status that is democratic and dignified, a proud status for a proud people. in a referendum organized by the local government in 2012, voters in puerto rico rejected territory status and expressed a clear preference for statehood. in response, congress provided an appropriation of $2.5 million to fund the first federally sponsored vote in puerto rico's history with the goal of resolving the territory status. this is the most significant step the federal government has ever taken to settle the status debate in puerto rico. i have proposed that the funding be used to hold federally sponsored yes or no vote on whether puerto rico

should be admitted as a state. some have complained that puerto rico already voted for statehood and should not have to vote again. this argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of history and how washington works. after expressing a strong desire for statehood in local research da, the territories of alaska and hawaii -- referendum the territories of alaska and hawaii sponsored a vote of yes or no to become statehood. if puerto rico wants to become a state it must do the same. my proposal has broad congressional support. since the bill i filed last congress that endorsed this approach, obtained 131 co-sponsors and led to the filing of an identical senate bill, my proposal also has significant local support. yesterday in a remarkable display of unity and resolve, all 22 members of the statehood

delegation in the puerto rico house and all eight members of the statehood delegation in the puerto rico senate introduced identical bills that propose to use the appropriation from congress to conduct a federally sponsored vote on puerto rico's admission as a state. now, all that remains is for puerto rico's governor, speaker of the house and senate president each a defender of the failed status quo, to show some courage and schedule this vote. real leaders do not fear the democratic process or its results. meanwhile, statehood forces continue our forward march, expanding in size and strength. indeed today, statehood supporters are rallying outside the white house and are holding

meetings here in congress. in the coming weeks and months, our advocacy efforts will only intensify as individuals our ability to affect change is admitted but as a united movement we are a strong as steel. we are fighting for equality and we will not stop until we achieve it. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, for five minutes. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, thank you very much for the recognition. this congress' still very young. this congress that we're in right now began last week when we gaveled in, we were sworn in and it has taken very little time for my republican colleagues to begin to message

to the american people just where they stand. the things that we've seen last week from the very beginning, one thing we saw was an effort in the rules package which prohibited social security from sending money over to the social security disability fund. this has been done many times before. it's routine. it will certainly create pressure and undermine and create real damage and a scary situation for people who are on disability social security payments and who survive on that based on their illness their documented recorded illness. but they didn't stop. the very next day they began to erode the financial protections that protect americans from the massively collapse that took place on wall street in 2008. already they want to dismantle

and chip away at the volcker rule. this is a commonsense rule that says big banks that hold collateralized loan obligations have to move these big assets, these big financial instruments outside of their banking business wherein they have protected assets by the fdic. we did that. the very next day we're moving on to dismantling the affordable care act, making it so that you don't get health care coverage or you can't mandate health care coverage until somebody works 40 hours as opposed to 30 which meant there will be people who will certainly will lose out on health care coverage from their employer. and then the next day here we are with keystone pipeline. they're trying to push that on under a bill that's really not a pure keystone bill. we're actually -- it doesn't have safeguards like spill protection things like that. and then here we are this week

about to see a bill on the floor very soon which will essentially prioritize republican gamesmanship over immigration, it will prioritize that over our homeland security. homeland security bill this bill, we passed last year, late last year. you may recall something like the conibus bill. we passed a whole series of funding bills for a year's time except for one particular bill and the bill that is due to expire is the homeland security bill. now, in the wake of paris happening just a few days ago, the horrific murder, carnage and bar baring behavior by terrorists -- barbaric behavior by terroristes that happened a few days ago, we're facing a big fight on of all things homeland security. and why are we having this big

fight? because the republicans want to show president obama that they're not going to allow him to use executive authority that is well within his power to do. presidents have always used executive authority. well the emancipation proclamation, issued by president lincoln, was executive authority. the bill that ronald reagan used executive authority, used many times. so did george h.w. bush. presidents used executive orders. and president obama has done some because the republican majority has refused to move on comprehensive imbration reform. he's used his authority to prioritize the deportation of criminals, people who've committed crimes over kids who are valedictorians, and he has done that well within his rights as the chief executive officer of this country. and because presidents don't like the executives orders

because they have very divisive views in my opinion, on immigration, they have decided to have a very short homeland security funding bill which is putting us in the position where we're either going to capitulate and back off the things that the president wants to do or we're going to pass a homeland security bill with a lot of things in it that would be damaging to the action that the president's already taken. let me tell you, some of the things in this homeland security bill are of huge concern to me. i'll just share a few of them. one of them is the blackburn amendment. this amendment would prohibit the use of funds to continue for deferred action for childhood arrivals program. pay close attention to this bill. this is not exactly what -- this is not what the american people want, and we urge the american people to pay close attention and i intend to vote

against these republican measures. so i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: the new year has come with many blessings but has also come with a major wake-up call. i rise again to express my deepest sympathy for the people of france, the loss of lives, including our jewish brothers and sisters targeted simply because of their faith and other innocents. i stand as well to recognize, as my friends in the muslim community have all come together to thank them, to

stand against violent and reckless terrorism. their voices were loud and present and noted. the heads of state the work of the united states in standing alongside france, our early and long-standing partner in democracy and liberty. yesterday some of us -- we greeted the french ambassador and to offer to the people of france our personal regrets and sympathy. as we look to the incidences that are coming to our attention around the world, let me bring again the girls in nigeria who were taken some almost a year ago. 300 innocent school girls. only thing that they wanted to

do was to take their exams. in the spring of 2014, i led a delegation of members of congress to the northern state. i met the pleading and crying and broken families. i met some of the girls who gave a story of how they escaped, sliding through the forests, the wooded forests escaping for their lives, barely with the clothes on their back and only through a light at a house along the road that they were able to get some refuge and then to escape three of them on a motorcycle with a hero whose name probably will never be known. but these girls now, is noted, that they have no more identity that we're saying bring the girls back but maybe they're married impregnated and indoctrinated with

doctrines that were not their life. they were christian. and so the focus on africa must be enhanced. i thank my good friend, congresswoman cashe bass, who has been working -- karen bass, who has been working tireless as head of the africa subcommittee and had a brilliant hearing this morning. but i come to announce that we cannot stand by as boko haram pillages violently recklessly, with inhumanity, kills with reckless abandonment, with no one stopping them, 2,000 people along lake chad bodies, people are tripping over and finding in the bushes and trees. this is a cry for mercy. this is an outrage. the world cannot stand by idly and not look to this. nigeria cannot fight this alone, and just as we have

announced a concerted global effort against isil and al qaeda, we must do this against boko haram. they are not simply a group of thugs. they have connected to this vial institution of terrorism. . they are going up against ill prepared military forces. we could point the finger and i am asking for the government of nigeria to stand and ask for help. there is no shame in asking for help. i'm asking the united nations to do more than it is doing. i'm asking the african union to collaborate with the forces they have at their side with the collaboration of african countries. to go to the rescue of the innocent persons in northern nigeria. how can we stand when a 10-year-old girl who needs to be playing with dolls and going to

school and looking into the sunshine for an aspirational life of things that she could do in 2014, probably a brilliant little girl, unbeknownst to her strapped with a horrible bomb, and now in death where her little body splintered by a bomb, a suicide bomber. how could she even understand what they had told her she was doing? so, mr. speaker, let me close by saying that i'm calling upon the world to join in a global effort to fight the terrorists' dastardly behavior of an uncaring boko haram, and i close by saying, we must reach out to young muslim boys in northern nigeria for an alternative to that life. may god rest in peace those who

have died at the hands of terrorists and we ask for a unified global response. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1 the chair declares the house in recess until noon today. now to the house ways and means committee.hoping

a hearing on the state of u.s. economic growth. >> you mentioned a few of the factors and does we try to turn our attention to income stagnation of the middle class, just review what you think are the major factors going back now 35 years and maybe you can put on this green the second chart. if not proceed. >> i think it is a very important charts and also, it does not matter which way you break it down. it is a very similar story that people who used to be in the middle of the income distribution and people middle class, people who had middle education has done relatively badly in terms of income growth. david orchard emphasizes the importance of ecological change.

a lot of what were administrative clerical jobs before, secondly globalization the patent trade that is developed. probably not as important as technological train. >> let me break in. i think as we talk about the importance of exports and globalization, you have to talk about the impact of imports. there is a tendency to look at just one side of the equation, when clearly you have to look up both. >> david orchard and colleagues have the research on the impact of china surgeon exports. they have mapped out in compelling detail the destruction of jobs and american manufacturing that came directly and specifically from the trade shop which was facilitated by

an episode of currency manipulation in which the chinese room and be was cap below the market value. imports are very important. they destroy jobs and those people go down. if they can get a job, they go down in terms of the income they can earn. that is a big part of what lies behind the picture that you showed earlier. >> thank you. my time is up. >> because we are having technical difficulties with the technology here, for the record when it comes to the pace of top 1% of wage growth, 138%. >> the slide that we showed. thank you. mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations on the new chairman. thank you for the hearing as

well. mr. hall taken i want to begin by asking you questions on social security disability. -- mr. holtz eakin. i will say the last thing that should happen is congress rating the retirement program to they'll out the disability program. this is worse than kicking the can down the road and make the social security retirement program worse without doing anything to fix it. do you believe reforming disability insurance would improve economic growth at all? >> yes. a couple of ways. first, on the merits of the program itself, we have a clear issue with people going on to disability insurance, and i think it is useful for the committee to review the definition of disability. we now basically divide people into the concrete groups, can work, disabled and a much more

fluid reality out there in terms of people with mental disabilities being able to work. this program provides a bad incentive to not have them work at all. there is a lot of fraud on top of that. the second thing is disability income is a black hole. they go in and never come out. i think we ought to think hard about young people on the program who if they got continuous monitoring would find ways to exit and move into the labor force at a relatively young age and would benefit from that. it is a great opportunity for the congress to look out of mandatory spending programs, and instead of just stealing money from another part in financing it or just cutting it, reforming it so it meets the social safety net objectives and costs less. that is what we want to do with the federal budget.

we have tried things like cutting medicare positions. it does not work. we need reforms, not cuts. >> thank you. i agree with you. i am sure most of my colleagues do to. as you know, it can take a long time for person to receive a decision on an application for disability. or those that did not qualify for benefits, how does this time out of the labor force and effect their earnings? >> in general, it is that for future earnings ability. we have learned in the downturn and the same lesson again and again, to have a policy to induce people to take such incentive is a bad incentive. >> sometimes workers take social security before they stop working. in other cases they need to keep working to supplement the retirement earnings income. if they claim benefits before the full retirement age based on

how much they earned due to retirement earnings test. how can we better encourage work? especially later in a worker's career? >> there are a long list of things one can do. looking at the normal retirement age and moving it to match the current life expect overseas. the taxation of social security earnings. when people are working and have earnings is something worth looking at. the program itself needs to be reformed. this is a pension program that is kept on the books by the promise to cut benefits 25% across the board after 25 years. they ought to be reformed so it will be sustainable for the future and then be able to make labor force decisions to know how much they had to earn and how long they have to work. all that would be beneficial.

>> tell me why we have to tax earnings. >> i did not say i wanted to, i said you need to re-examine that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i want to take an opportunity to congratulate you on becoming the chairman of this committee. and like mr. levin, i look forward to working with you, sir. >> thank you. >> members of the panel welcome. dr. johnson, would you like to comment on the question raised by mr. johnson? >> yes mr. lewis. this is an issue, a problem we encounter in many severe crises. this is why preventing severe financial crisis is so important, because when so many people are dumped into the labor markets, you are overwhelming

the capacity to cope and more people end up on disability, a lot of them end up with stress on disability because of what has happened. that is why the. franks are so important. i urge you to not lose part of that part of the big picture. this is why the stimulus is so important also. making sure they stay engaged with the labor force. it is about him from out of work and then people could not find a job. those are the circumstances in which we find ourselves in 2008 at 2000 -- in 2009. >> the budget passed by the house republicans last year would have unfairly target low and moderate income americans for significant cuts in assistance with at least 69% of the non-defense cuts coming from programs that serve all with

limited means. i want you to tell us, do you worry cutting medical food and education assistance to struggling americans might be counterproductive to long-term economic growth? fax yes-- >> yes, mr. lewis. human capital. the ability to go and learn is affected by nutrition, access to health care. medicaid for children is a very sensible investment in the long term future growth of the country and the fiscal sustainability. if they cannot concentrate if they are sick, absent from school for those reasons or if their family has medical emergencies that means they can i keep the kids in school, all of this impacts negatively.

obviously the rest of us as a society. >> are you concerned this might increase the inequality touches already a growing concern across the country? >> yes. i think inequality is an important issue. i would stress not just about inequality redistribution. at this point in the history it is about growth. human capital, people. it is about who are you helping when they are young and poor and their families cannot help them? what kind of opportunities are you providing? i think it is also about immigration reform. we should be forcing people to join the labor force, especially families with young children.

potential growth in legal -- labor force through growth in immigration. no other >> thank you. i have been working on several years on a proposal to get us to a system that allows us to control the ebbs and flows, and let capital come off the sidelines. not just in things here in the united states, but also offshore. and let that money go to where it would be best used in the economy __ where entrepreneurs and investors want to invest. you have heard of the bradford tax __ what i did was converting that and looking at

all business activity and created a cash flow tax. i have been working with other chairman of the joint tax. is is in theory now, but i am trying to set it and get it out in the public so that all people can look at what it would look like under different tack structure. if you could, on the record, talk about the positives, and possibly negative, to transitioning tech structures. >> as you know, i'm a student of the late great bradford. i'm a big fan of your tax system as a result. i think you have a lot of virtues in equalizing taxes across sectors of the economy. it would allow us to stop the

practice of walking offshore. again, that is having investment flow to its highest rate of return. effectively, it taxes people on what they take out of the economy __ what they consume, rather than what they put in. as a basis for taxation, that is a very fair principle __ tax them on what they take out. it distinguishes between a high_income individual who has a lavish lifestyle, and a high income individuals who puts their money back into the economy. it talks about fairness __ not everyone was created equal. the downside __ not be able to have high tax rates on the

wealthy. this system is especially desirable. it turns the whole world into a big ira. you tax everything that comes out __ the original plus the earnings. if you end up being microsoft, or a successful startup, all of that success gets taxed. or a roth sort of thing __ that allows for much more windfall as far as the tax. it is a very good candidate. >> now we have entrepreneurs who make their startup decisions based off of the tax

code. that is exactly what we don't want them to do. >> yes. >> really have __ we only have one minute left. >> i'm also a fan of the ex tax. i like the idea of it as a generalized ira. individuals can save and pay tax only wanted to get out. that is a way of improving fairness. it also contributes towards saving incentives and gross. >> i look forward to sharing the proposal with you. it is just a draft for now. i would like to your comments when you can. thank you. i yield back. >> mr. neil is recognized. >> thank you and

congratulations again. the panel as we have are all well regarded. i would like to talk about dynamic exploring. recently, myself and a colleague had the chance to see an almost completed project in new haven on towards st. albans, vermont. it would mean 12 to 16 new trains per day between new haven and springfield. there are two union train stations under renovation because of it. i supported stimulus. i got on the floor and spoke in support of the stimulus package presented by president obama. do you __ how, according to mr.

ryan's underscored taking, would you measure the effect of stimulus in terms of investment which i happen to believe is a progrowth economic undertaking? i'm comfortable enough asking all three panels to tell me what you think. >> let me go back to the stimulus bill in 2009. at that time, interest rates were down to about 0%. i thought we needed a fiscal stimulus. i thought the design of that particular bill was not good. i thought that in the end they provided some stimulus, but it probably contribute more to national debt than it did to gdp. i think in the end, we have had a very significant recovery because the federal reserve

took over and introduced so_called quantitative easing __ it drove down long_term interest rates. that ultimately led to big increases in home values in stock market equity values. that led to increased consumer spending. that in turn led to more hiring by firms, more inventory accumulation. that gave us the recovery that start in the second halfof 2013. as a more general proposition, when you do spending, it is worth trying to calculate what that will do to gdp.

historically, on the tax side, that has not been done. congress gets an incorrect view of what the costs are of tax reductions and what the benefits are of tax increases. >> can we hear from the other two quickly? we only have about two minutes. >> i will just point out couple obvious things. very few bills are substantial enough in their impact to merit looking at the growth impact of those bills. a couple bills in each congress will probably merit this consideration. i do not think it will change most of the work of the congress at all. i would also say __ this is not a new thing, or particularly exotic thing.

the cbo has been doing this since 2003. the third thing, it is no more uncertain than the conventional score. they will be the judgments __ i do not think any of that will stop members of the committee knowing. >> i agree that we should consider the full growth implications. scoring is very complicated. some of these models have some strange features. assuming full of employment, for example. in the modern american climate, that is quite a stretch. i worry that it can be, and is

will justify whatever outcome. >> you will consider the idea of spending as it relates to dynamic scoring? >> it is in the house rules. i think the gentleman should review. >> we have looked at it. >> it is spending as well. >> the language is different. as spending is to revenue. i suggest, there is an article in the "new york times" __ >> the gentleman's time has expired. we can revisit this at another time. we recognize another chairman. >> thank you. in your testimony, you say trade supports jobs. in my home state of ohio __ home of the national champion buckeyes, by the way __

>> champion of what? >> a lot of misconceptions, rhetoric thrown around. in fact, we have had presidential candidates talk about trade being bad but exports being good. can you do trade without exports or vice versa? >> no. >> it has been surreal to watch. in ohio, international trade supports 1.4 million jobs. trade accounts for about a 44% increase over the past several years. our trading partners purchased 19% more goods from ohio than

non_trading countries. canada is our number one exporter. nafta is bad. many people in ohio think. my dad was a steelworker. like jobs that many people in those industries have had, those jobs did not go overseas __ technology change those jobs. often times, we do not hear about the advancement of technology and what that has done to our economy. the scapegoat often tends to be that these jobs went elsewhere. i have toward factory plants where there used to be 20 people on assembly job, but now there is one. 19 jobs gone to technology. >> as we move forward, with

respect to your testimony, i think there is a huge opportunity for america. whether you look at trade, exporting, the tax code, we in the united states are doing well. despite the fact that we have the hide corporate tax rate, you __ fewer trading partners for many of our allies have. can you tell us why opening additional markets is important sooner rather than later? why that is important to our economy in ohio, and other states? >> is important nowbecause we are not fully employed.

additional opportunities to access markets brings us opportunity. second, we will begin at the ground floor. if you're on the sidelines, the rules are probably undesirable. it is better to be at the table. ultimately, we would expect to get back to full employment. this is to sell to the rest of the world what we believe to be the biggest growth. you get the opportunity to take advantage of technology. like you said, if you can do something better, using a venture that through trade.

globalization has changed the level of the land permanently. you cannot imagine the geopolitical situation in the middle east now and oil prices where they are at. it is hard when people are displaced by trade, it happens. but, it is an opportunity. if congress does not take advantage of this opportunity, we will have more people working. there is interregional trade __ jobs going from the north to the south. >> mr. doggett is recognized. >> i believe this is just an

oversight __ republicans thinking about this happening in the senate __ mr. mcconnell started the session by noting that the uptick in our economy resulted from the mere expectation of a republican congress. it is good to know that after so many apocalyptic predictions that we have enough progress that some republican leadership is claiming credit for all the things they said would hurt or hinder the economy that had, in fact, helped it significantly. one of the areas that we have not seen progress in that we

need to see is the fact that not all americans are insured. this is not by accident. the data is remarkable that we have the widest wealth gap in decades. compensation for chief executive officers at american corporations was about 20 times that of the typical worker back in the 1960's. in more recent years, it has become about 300 times the typical worker's pay. since 1979, worker productivity increased by 65% but worker wages remain flat. ceo pay grew by almost 1000%. i think that this income inequality has same of the effects on economic growth in our country.

as does discrimination against certain groups __ ggender discrimination, for example. claiming that we will not allow women to fully participate in our economy. in this case, we treated one group of americans as not having the potential to not be able to fully achieve their god_given potential. i just want to ask you about that further. what is the impact about decisions here in congress through action or inaction to not have all americans participate in this. increases in pell grants to ensure that more americans can share and contribute in the economy. does that have a direct impact

on our future economic growth as a country? >> the process of technology and globalization that we have been discussing __ no one has been asking you to turn back the tide. there are many sensible policies under jurisdiction, including pell grants, including other incentives. we know what kind of skills you need in order to be productive and for our country to compete globally. we know the need to have better information technology. we also know that it is very hard for people to get the skills. it is hard for them to get any sort of education.

i think we should stop talking a k_12, and talk about kate through 14, those extra two years after high school are important. >> it is difficult to see how you can lower the tax rate for a company like general electric, unless you pay them for operating __ which we have in fact done in past years. as you look at corporate tax reform, is it important to close loopholes at the same time that we make any changes? >> as you consider corporate taxes you should consider a competence of her approach. compare around the world __ the world bank does this. ask entrepreneurs how they assess the business model. we are very close to five other countries that are in these rankings. >> thank you.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. like my colleagues, i support a robust trade agenda. i come from washington state. i think most others know that washington state with microsoft and boeing __ a large percentage of our jobs created in washington are the result of a strong trade agenda. the president of the united states agrees that cpp and tpa are critical to doubling our exports and creating jobs in america. i happen to be a member of the presidents export counsel, and have been for the past six years, and have been at almost every one of those meetings. of course the presidents wish and the investors wish is that

the democrats recognize their wish and help them get tpa and tpp pass through this caucus. as i said, 40% of the jobs in washington state __ my focus is on small business and how technology has helped small businesses. really think of exports and larger corporations across this country, but i have a sson_in_law who is currently in china and a son who has a machine shop that sells its products to all the world. how important is trade to the small businesses in the future and in the expansion of their businesses? how important is trade to create jobs and opportunities

for people who migrate to the small businesses further employment? >> it is always a ballpark number. about 70% of our exporters could be classified as small exporters. the value numbers get dominated by the boeings and microsoft's of the world. for small businesses, it is important to their business to be able to get to other countries and sell there. their access to markets is intimately linked to our success in creating new jobs at a higher pay, and getting rid of high_paying jobs is part of natural growth. > we find that 80% or more of

jobs created across this country are really created by small businesses, correct? >> small businesses, that is the place we see the greatest job creation. >> a really creates opportunity to not be able to sell a product is in the united states, but __ 95% of our market is outside of this country. >> it can be hard to document, please sell in another country, you see the marketing policies that they use, and those are adopted in the american firms. there are a lot of advantages engage in these activities. >> i would like to adjust my last question to you, quickly. >> another area where we can

boost our economy is through tax reform __ it has been mentioned several times. since 1986, look at tax code, we could creates uncertainty and stability. of course, creating jobs __ what about pass_through businesses? they face a higher marginal tax rate, in addition to high compliance cost. how you see the change in the tax code specifically helping those small passive businesses? >> i think that is a major challenge you face as a committee in congress during the tax reform. lowering the corporate tax rate where both the president and the republicans have said that we need to get down into the 20's.

pass_through businesses file to the personal tax reform and face much higher tax rates. somehow, that has to be dealt with. by creating business income by pastor individuals differently from other things. in effect, they get the benefit that comes with corporate tax reform. >> i yield back. >> thank you. >> echoing the sentiments of the committee, congratulations on two fronts for becoming chairman and congratulations for the success of the green bay packers. i do not want to create further controversy. >> how about the detroit lions? >> i object.

>> that is a really dynamic score. it gets to the point __ i want to acknowledge my district is announcing a floor of $16 per hour for its employees. in large part thanks to the affordable care act and coming together of a pro_growth industry. i wanted to acknowledge that. i also want to return to the point of dynamic scoring. as it relates to the rules that are before us. with respect to infrastructure in general __ something that this committee needs to desperately address __ in terms of our roads, sewage systems. a quick answer from the members, yes or no __ should

dynamic scoring be included in major every structure programs? >> if it is really major, i could see the case for. >> 30% of the roads have long been neglected by the congress. it seems like this is a pent_up need that would require it. >> it would be good to know the impact on gdp that that kind of infrastructure program would have. >> if it is large_scale, mandatory spending, under house rule, it will be scored. if it is extremely large_scale, and will possibly have's impacts, the committee chairs can designate legislation to have it dynamically scored. there's nothing about these rules that helps the films one way or another.

>> yes, but can we also provide medicaid for children, affordable care act __ these things are scored backwards. you will open yourself up toa massive tech catastrophe. >> let me yield to my colleague from massachusetts. if i can yield to mr. neil. >> i think what we're trying to get to hear is the idea that there are economic outcomes that come from significant infrastructure investments there are not only long overdue, but have been resisted by the majority in the house. the path forward seems to be one that includes an investment

into huge union station, putting a lot of construction workers on the job, the rail being improved, broadband being extended so that children __ who by the way have first_class colleges in the community __ have to go to the library to connect to the internet. if we are only going to apply this to tax cuts, it seems to me that it is still considered. if we decide we'll talk about long_term investments, what better way to do it than improving rail. on high speed rail __ that first train and we got __ it

got up to 79 miles per hour, how do we measure that accurately if we resist the idea that that does not count in terms of a long_term forecasts economically. >> can i take a shot at that. i think we should be considered these broad economic impacts. i think you have to be careful with exactly the details of the models that have been used in the implications. you are right, there are gross implications for renewing and expanding the infrastructure of this country. >> thank you, your time has expired. >> here we are in year six of the recovery. i think we have all established that growth is essential. you really laid out the task of this committee very clearly. our task is to accelerate

growwth in this country beyond what we are saying. as i've looked and read many things during the course of the past three years, trade and energy have been the two accelerants that have worked against the drag that we've seen in this economy. i want to point out __ in my state, louisiana __ we are now seeing $80 million in new investment. we have doubled exports and four years. this is all in energy and exports. we've seen resurgence in manufacturing. what worries me in all of this __ the's economic threats in this __ blowing in asia,

problems in europe where they cannot get policy straight, insecurity in the middle east, and elsewhere. what do we do about those things? there many things that we've talked to hear about what we can do. but, what can the united states do to mitigate these threats and lead? without u. s. leadership, we will not see this type of growth needed in this country nor globally. i believe that america's opportunity to lead is promotion authority. that opens the door and gives our negotiators the best opportunity on tpp. this is economic growth.

with energy and trade and the success story that we are seeing in louisiana __ i'm afraid that much of that is then. there are two things i want to point out. it is my sense of these jobs related to exports and manufacturing exports, as well as energy jobs, pay significantly better than jobs unrelated to that. for instance, many folks back home with a high school education __ not even an extra two years __ are making pretty good money. we know of stats on export related jobs __ i think it is about 18% higher than non_export related jobs. would you agree that all the types of jobs pay better on average? >> i think that is a fact. >> so when we deal of income inequality, this is also one of

the solutions, eembracing trade in markets and this energy revolution, not penalizing with taxes, but embracing it as a truly revolutionary development that will put the united states in a leadership role. >> i agree with you completely. the question for this committee is you need to give the tpa the fast track. you could instead focus on the tpp. >> our negotiators need to maximize their leverage in these negotiations. i've had conversations with the japanese and they admit that. another point __ one of the biggest issues that we will

face in louisiana is the lack of workforce to handle all these jobs. i am very concerned about the labor market united states. we will be robbing peter to pay paul in our state and along the gulf coast. we have high unemployment. what can we do to deal with this? >> i think you have a limited number of tools in terms of geographic mobility, something that has diminished in the united states. i would urge state_level governors to look at licensing and certification that interferes with labor market mobility. those are some things.

you also have the social safety net. you want people to work. >> time for the gentleman has expired. >> i welcome your words and the spirit in which they were offered. this hearing was an interesting and thought_provoking panel to get us going. the issues that we have referenced as far as tax trade and health care are somewhat complex and controversial. i think the absolutely need to be on the agenda. i would argue that there may be something that the panel did not address that is tied to this they can actually have an opportunity to bring people together. i'm thinking the next hearing might well have the president of the afl_cio, the president of the chamber of commerce, the

president of civil engineers, environmentalists, truckers, who will unite and say, after 22 years, it may be time for us to raise the gas tax. president ronald reagan, 22 years ago __ 23 years ago __ in his address for thanksgivingmade an appeal that when congress came back he wanted them to more than double the gas tax because roads were falling apart. there were hundreds of thousands of people who could be put to work. it was a user feed that conferred benefits on people who paid it.

he said, it would probably cost the average motorist less than the cost of an average pair of shock absorbers. the estimates are not controversial across the political spectrum __ they cost about $100 billion per year that one third of our roads are in poor or mediocre conditions. it is costing average motorist over $300 per year in damage to the vehicles. the snp economic report __ we talked about dynamic scoring __ what a user or not, the evidence is strong that a $1.2 million investment would put

close to 30,000 people to work in infrastructure. we do not have to worry about whether it is in regions of high unemployment or not __ these jobs would be available across the country. i would respectfully suggest that our committee have the unique responsibility __ this title for transportation is ways and means. this is our jurisdiction. we have not yet had a hearing on this in over two congresses. we will have one, chairman camp offered it on the floor __ circumstances did not permit. i respectfully suggest that this is an area that there is

broad consensus where we can get local government, state governments, the private sector, the professionals, environmentalists, truckers, and aaa to come together and say, congress, get going. when i came to the airport yesterday, the corner gas station was selling gasoline $1.60 less that was a year ago. consumers would pay less than 1/10 of what their arty benefiting from reduced gasoline prices. remember, they're paying over $300 per year in damage to the cars. i think we could have a very

healthy discussion with experts across the political spectrum of what we could do __ if somebody has a better suggestion, let's hear from them. >> unfortunately, the time for the gentleman has expired to ask his question. [laughter] >> thank you for your courtesy. >> i want to join my colleagues in congratulating you on ascending to the chairmanship of the committee. i look forward to working with you in your efforts. i want to first talk about some macroeconomic analysis __ what my friends called dynamic scoring, i call real and accurate scoring. with some amusement, all of my friends on the other side asked

questions as an effort to get an assessment of what a policy change would have on the economy. that is called's economic analysis, dynamic scoring. it is what economists do every single day, they provide an assessment of the consequences of the policy decisions that we would make. i want to welcome my colleagues in recognizing the importance of macroeconomic analysis. i also want to say that we are all very pleased that the economy has become a little more robust. it is also important to remember that this is the slowest recovery in any economic downturn in this country, ever. there is a reason for that. we, as policymakers, should be asking the question why is that.

i want to highlight your quote __ i think it is important that we asked the question __ what are the work incentives on any policy measure that we take? oon that end, we last week resulted that the december job numbers resulted in a decrease in the unemployment rate to 5.6%. it does not tell the whole story. the more troubling story was the labor practice __ labor participation rate. it is the lowest it has been in 30 years. also, the number of women that are participating is the lowest it has been in 26 years. could you comment on why the lower force participation rates are so low?

can you provide us on two or three items on how we can increase that? >> if you look at the decline, some of it is demographics. there is aging, retirement. some of the decline comes from that. >> how much of it? >> about half. about half a percentage point is due to people who got discouraged, they may return. another quarter is open to this view, __ dispute, whether they come back is up to discussion.

i tend to be in the camp that says they will not come back. it has only been in the latter half of 2014 that if you look at an unemployed person, and the probability that they get a job, and the probability that they leave the labor force. when they leave the labor force, they will not come back. over 90% of people, both men and women. i think we have discouraged a chunk of workers in a big and substantial way. we need to be examined from start to finish the kinds of anti_work incentives that are in all of our social safety net programs. >> do you want to highlight some of those? >> a big chunk comes from single men whose labor force

has gone down a lot. the eit fee is not beneficial to that. another big decline has been in teens. i'm skeptical about the virtue of minimum wage increase. we had been increasing it, and teens leaving the workforce has been enormous. further work is that we have, do not let them leave. >> thank you. >> mr. kind is recognized. >> i too want to recognize my friend from wisconsin and look forward to working with you. i hope we find some common ground on some issues in this nation. you can comment on the question i give to you, or not. we are having a hearing on the

state of the economy and our nation. it is difficult in the current environment because it seems like the parties are on two different planets __ we are talking past one another. most of the republican comments that have come before us, it seems to be a keynote thought that they love to repeat __ it is always about tax cuts and spending cuts __ including, special investments that we should make on our human capital. it is not a matter that economic circumstances that we are facing at the time, it is the same three notions that they say over and over again. i used to be a quarterback.

i know that is a play is not working, you have to change it. it seems to me that it is less data in fact driven, but more ideological driven. that is a problem. there will be an appropriate time to increase taxes, or decreased taxes, or deregulate, or regulate. if you could distinguish between the two, it benefit as. it is that inability that ties up in knots. to get back to the original point you made in your statement, you said __ repeated

confrontations over the deficit, defaulting on the dead creates a great deal of uncertainty in the country. you cite standoffs and the uncertainty that that created. do you care to expand on that? >> my recommendation is don't do it. i testified to this committee __ i think two years ago __ on these points. i beseech all the members to not engage in these destabilizing competition politics, we've been to default on the debt, that is crazy. to threaten government shutdown and generate this uncertainty __ aagain, that is not helpful.

this can be measured, and it is in my testimony, how uncertainty affects everyone. it affects all the parts of the recovery. all americans want to get back to work, and then sort out opportunities. with uncertainty, you will slow down the economy for sure. >> there has been a lot of focus on tax reform and the impact it will have. again, you talk to business owners themselves, i think the impact of tax policy is way overstated. that is due to the multiple factors that businesses have to make everyday. can you speak on that in regards to the whole dynamic scoring issue that we are

talking about? how difficult it is to do's economic analysis. >> i think it is multi dimensional. i think benchmarking what businesses need make sense. i think you will see a range of things, including skilled labor. >> the last time we had tax reform in 19 __ 1986 that resulted in the greatest economic growth that we had that was under present them reagan. >> i agree that this committee has a great opportunity to work together and do things right now. i want to bring up the conversation in my colleagues

brought up earlier on the corporate world. i had the opportunity to be in hong kong on the flat rate. i think we agree that we need to do something with corporate rates. my concern iswith pass_through entities. you have touched on it a bit. the effective rate in the country __ if you add in state taxes, the average is 49.6%. if you move from 35 to 28, 225, whatever their china doing their. i do not know how you can be competitive as far as pastors. one statistic that i got were

from small businesses, obviously pastors. 60% of job creation comes from these businesses. i would also say __ in terms of reducing the rate, if you're a pass_through entity, in your giving half of your money back to the governments, it is hard to be able to grow your business adequately when you're giving half of it away. my point __ what are your thoughts on lowering rates in terms of pass_throughs, what difference would that make on the economy and growing jobs? >> i think it was mentioned

earlier, it is about tax policy that treats the same business activity differently whether is a pass_through or corporation. that would drive you to organize your business based on tax considerations. that is a hallmark of tax interfering with the efficiency of the economy. in the work that i've done, entrepreneurial types of ventures, their disproportionately sensitive to tax considerations. they are highly dependent on taxable. you see strong linkage between tax policy entities in these. i would be happy to get the research and citations to you. >> my sense __ as someone who has been in 30 years __ if you see people move back to c corps.

>> it is an option that companies have. they can always go back if they can get a better tax rate. the reason that small corporations prefer to be an s corp, or a pass_through is that they avoid a round of tax. it is a complicated situation, there is no simple solution as to how you integrate the two. i think the simple principle is how you take taxes out. >> thank you. i would just add that in the late 70's and early 80's we had

s corps __ nnow we're coming full circle to have c corps. i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good luck. [laughter] >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, i have noticed that we have lowered the decimals, but we're still not __ it will take a lot more than talk to get us out of this jam. one example __ i hear from your site all the time about discussing and debating the business tax extenders. i hear nothing about personal

tax extenders. i think that has become quite obvious that if we are going to come to any agreements, there must be consideration. i sincerely wish you the best of luck, you will need it. i liked asked mr. __ would like to ask mr. johnson on trade. you wrote an article in 2013 on what we need to avoid entry deals, which look lovely on the outside. you talked about trade expanding unfairly at times without a level playing field that does not protect our workers who benefit from free trade. is it the workers in the factories? or is it the shareholders and executives at the top that you are talking about?

>> as you know, and as we have been discussing, most of the gains in terms of income have been realized at the top of the income distribution. most of that is for management and ceos __ highly skilled labor has also done well. i think this is important to talk about with tpp. this is an issue before this committee. in the auto industry, japan has had a very close market for a long time. are they willing to open that up to u. s. exports? that would seem like an appealing opportunity. if you grant tpa, you get the fast track, you will not be engaged in a discussion.

>> we will leave this committee hearing now, you can follow it online at c_span.org. we will take you live to the house. there are three builds on the agenda for today. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. almighty god we give you thanks for giving us another day. bless the members of this people's house. help them to walk in the light, to share their strengths and to build upon their common desire for the good of our nation,

that they might better attend to the important issues of our day. may they think clearly speak confidently and act courageously to make our nation better today than it was yesterday. if it be your will, we ask that men and women of good will from both sides of the political aisle might cooperate in the forming of law and policy. may we be forever grateful for the blessings our nation enjoys and appropriately generous with what we have to help those among us who are in need. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved.

>> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1 rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from louisiana, mr. boustany. mr. boustany: please join me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stand naonnd iivib, thibty and jusceorll

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the house republican conference, i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 29, resolved that the following named members be and are meesh elected to the -- hereby alleged db the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. messer: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition?

the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. crawford: i rise in recognition of my friend who will retire after 28 years of service to agriculture in my home county. for nearly three decades, mr. grant has faithfully dedicated himself to all aspects of agriculture, horticulture, family and consumer sciences and 4-e -- 4-h. for knowing his trade he's done so while cultivating meaningful and lasting relationships as well. our region's constituents have reached out to him as friends. i can speak from experience about how mr. grant has helped me throughout the years whether it involved my service as a tv news reporter, a farm broadcaster on the radio or a legislator in the u.s. house of representatives. as mr. grant prepares to retire on thursday i wish him many days that reflect his outstanding service to agriculture.

mr. speaker, please join me in and all of northeast arkansas to honoring the service of eric grant and wishing him a happy retirement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what puosdo the gentleman from washington seek recognition? the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> thank you mr. speaker. i rise today to call for the house to immediately take up legislation to re-authorize the secure rural schools program. mr. kilmer: for more than 100 years, the federal government has recognized the financial stresses that national forest land puts on local communities. the failure of congress to re-authorize this program at the end of the last congress has resulted in significant budget gaps and enormous uncertainty for county governments in my state and throughout the country. school districts across the country are pouring over their books, figuring out how to scale back essential services that they provide to students, to our kids and to their families. in washington state, one county has seen its budget for the sheriff's office cut in half, making layoffs inevitable.

in the region i represent, jefferson county is now struggling to repair a key access road that was washed out from a storm. without secure rural schools, funding to complete the repairs, the county is hoping a state emergency declaration will provide needed funds. other counties are facing similar projects in limbo. mr. speaker, let's maintain our federal obligation to rural and timber communities and work in a bipartisan fashion to pass legislation that re-authorizes and funds this critical program as soon as possible. thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it is a true honor to be here today and i'm humbled to serve in washington following the honorable howard coble. mr. rouzer: i made a promise to always put the people before the politics. each day upon entering this

most historic place, i'm reminded this house belongs to the people. this past november, these same individuals voiced their strong desire for change, real change with fresh faces and new ideas. as part of my commitment i have joined several of my colleagues to support term limits for congress. we must always stay connected to our constituents without falling prey to special interests. it's not the most popular of choices but i was sent to washington stomb the people and i believe that term limits are needed to ensure that we never lose sight while we are here. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recogze mr. in s 29 states including my home state of new york and the district of columbia guarantee a minimum wage higher than that required by federal law. these states recognize that $7.25 an hour is not enough to support a family of four.

no american that works full time should have to live in poverty. because the minimum wages that not kept pace with inflation, today it holds less buying power than it did in 1981. this is unacceptable. raising the minimum wage will not only increase earnings for millions but it will increase consumer demand by bowlesering the purchasing power of low-income americans. 88% of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase are 20 years old or older and 55% are women. while new york is on track to increase its minimum wage by $9 by 2016, state-by-state increases is not enough. 16 states remain at or below the federal level and dessparets between the states creates -- dess parities between the states creates economic uncertainty. the time to raise the minimum wage is now. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady's time has d ind sk coitn? mrs. walorski: i ask unanimous

consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from indiana is recognized. mrs. walorski: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of our opportunity as a congress to stop an unconstitutional action by the president and allow congress to perform its constitutional responsibilities, to write and create through the laws of this great land. article 1, section 8 of the constitution is clear, it is congress' responsibility to write the law. the president's job is to simply enforce those laws. unfortunately, president obama has initiated some of the largest executive power grabs in american history by unilateral rewriting our nation's immigration laws. these actions have ignored the will of the american people. this week the house will address those reforms and prevent the president and future presidents from abusing that authority, breaking the law and ignoring the constitution at the expense of resolving a national crisis. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker.

i ask unanimous consent to address the house and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mrs. beatty: i rise today to say congratulations to the ohio state buckeyes for their victory last night for the first college football national playoff championship game. mr. speaker i have the proud honor of representing the third congressional district of ohio home of the victorious buckeyes football team. mr. speaker, last night i joined my ohio congressional delegation and others to cheer for the buckeyes. mr. speaker, football is definitely a bipartisan activity. most valuable player elliott broik national championship records for rushing yards and rushing touchdowns, and to our winning quarterback cardell jones, who made the victory possible last night. to all the players fans, the

band, coaches, athletic directors i say congratulations. go, bucks. thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? the gentleman from nevada is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it has been 10 years since a taxi driver died. the goldberg family searched to a nonprofit group to continue the search. they immediately hit a federal regulatory roadblock. the team was told they needed a $1 million insurance policy to gain access to federal lands. it took nine months to obtain the insurance. they entered the park one year. mr. heck: it took the team all of two hours to locate keith's

remains. mr. speaker i introduced legislation to waive federal liability and access public lands to conduct a missioning person's searches. it passed this house by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 394-0. unfortunately, time expired on the session before the senate could take action. i come to the floor today to announce that tomorrow i will once again introduce the good samaritan search and recovery act. i urge the house to take swift action on this legislation because unnecessary red tape must not continue to get in the way to providing closure like the goldbergs. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back th balancef s me for whuroe gentlely omalora ek reizdemi? -- recognition? for what purpose does? the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. davis: mr. speaker in december congress passed a spending bill to keep the government open finally providing some certainty to our economy. another shutdown was the last thing anyone needed. but we cannot forget that one

agency was left out, the department of homeland security. creating uncertainty at homeland security is reckless because it threatens our national security. the tragic events in france remind us that we need to be as vigilant as ever. so why is this funding held back? so the majority can try to force its immigration policy on the president and the full congress. we can and we should have the immigration debate, but it should not hold hostage the hardworking men and women who guard our ports and protect our borders. mr. speaker let's do the right thing. let's fund homeland security and have a proper debate on immigration. this is not an either/or situation. it's a both/and. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous

consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, i rise to draw attention to an issue with serious implications for louisiana. over the past 20 years customs and border protection has not only failed to collect $2.3 billion in anti-dumping duties, it's doubled down by refusing to pay collected interest owed to american industries like louisiana's crawfish processors. last october, c.d.p. propromised this louisiana industry it would disburse $of million in interest only to reverse its decision one month later. this is just unacceptable. while i was able to include language in the homeland security appropriations bill to address this issue, i still don't believe it goes far enough to ensure that c.d.p. is forced to follow through on paying what is owed to under the law. it is vitally important that congress hold c.b.p. account abbling. it is not only a job creator

it has a rich history in louisiana's culture. mr. speaker, i will not allow c.b.p. to run over this industry without a fight. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker i rise today again to join my colleagues who you will hear from to challenge this dastardly act of 300 girls that remain captured abused violated, impregnated, maybe even married into the horrors of boko haram. these are the very women we met when we went there just last

year, as they pleaded to be able to bring the girls back. now their voices are turned to the 2,000 who have been killed by boko haram. i ask for a global response in the war on boko haram. a global response if the african union a global response from the united nation, to fight against boko haram and at the same time to save the boys that are being recruited by this vile, horrible leader. this leader is tushing these boy into violent killers. our girls now are still suffering. so to these beautiful women who now still are in the midst, saying, bring the girls back, i want to tell them, we are coming to the rescue, we will not allow the world to stand by while boko haram kills. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the gentleman from california is recognized.

>> mr. speaker, late last year, we saw the president knowingly ignore immigration law, claiming to grant legal status to those who entered the country illegally which looks like amnesty to many americans and done in complete defiance of our rule of law. mr. lamalfa: some claim his plan is funded by fees and fines. i have one answer, no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in appropriations made by law. this is straight from article 1 of section 9 of the constitution. no exceptions new york ast risks new york fine print. unilateral attacks on our rule of law and unprecedented power grabs from this president need to end. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation that will stop the president's executive overreach and defend the will of the american people. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. mrs. adams: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today to urge my republican colleagues to stop toying with our nation's security. disrupting funding to the department of homeland security is an extreme and reckless form of partisan politics. even senate republicans have expressed concern over the tactics used by their house colleagues. defending the infrastructure is unacceptable. in recent days both france and nigeria experienced tragic terrorist attacks. that highlights the threat here at home. now is not the time to weaken our defenses. shutting down government any government agency is

irresponsible. house republicans should have learned their lesson in 2013. when will they stop the partisan politics and start legislating? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life of mr. hugh tarbutton he will be fondly remembered and sorely missed. in his life he was many things, a husband, a father a philanthropist, and entrepreneur. he attended the sandersville high school and went on to emery oxford college. among his many accolades, hugh received the emery medal, the -- emory medal, the highest medal granted to emory alumni. he championed economic growth in georgia while serving as president and c.e.o. of the

sandersville railroad company. mr. tarbutton is survived by his wife of 53 years geena, and their four children, hugh jr. charles, ben lily and their eight grandchildren. hugh will be remembered in many ways but to those who knew him best he'll be remembered as a great friend. mr. hice: i ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life and legacy of hugh tarbutton. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? the gentlelady from florida is recognized. >> mr. speaker, since last year's kidnapping of over 200 nigerian school girls, boko

haram's violence and attacks have not stopped. instead, they have become more violent more deadly, more frequent. last week, boko haram attacked the nigerian town, killing 2,000 men, women, and children. furthermore as recently as sunday there have been reports of young girls used, as young as 10 years old, being used as suicide bombers and sent into crowded markets by boko haram militants. mrs. wilson: mr. speaker we can no longer stand by idly and watch as innocent little girls are strapped with explosives and civilians are slaughtered by the thousands. too many lives have been lost and innocent people murdered at the hands of those who use religion to propagate hate and oppression. my heart goes out to the victims and their families. i call on my colleagues to join me and members of the house foreign affairs committee in condemning the devastating actions of boe coe ha. rah. we must keep fighting those who would use terrorism and fear to

oppress us. we must keep tweeting like i have for 273 days #bringbackourgirls and #joinrepwilson to show we will not forget. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> after being sworn in last week, we immediately got to work voting on legislation to boost job creation provide relief from obamacare increase america's energy security and create more job opportunities for veterans. all these bills passed with strong, bipartisan support. yet for some reason, the president's already said he will veto at least two of them. building the keystone pipeline will put americans back to work and help secure our energy future. restore og ba macare's

definition of full-time employment from 30 hours to 40 hours will increase take-home pay for hourly workers. mr. walberg: mr. speaker we are here to solve problems and deliver positive results for the american people. for the good of america, i hope the president will put dun his veto pen and join us -- put down his veto pen and join us in this effort. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> thank you mr. speaker. i think they've reached a new low. the republican majority has decided that they're willing to shut down the agency that detects, deters, and responds to threats in our homeland. with an elevated terror alert status and in light of what just happened in paris they must have a good reason right?

ms. sanchez: wrong. they're holding essential anti-terrorism funding hostage because they want to deport the dream kids. they're putting our homeland security, our entire way of life, at risk because they want to separate mothers from their children. there's a phrase in spanish for this. [speaking spanish] which means they have no shame. stop playing games with our homeland security and put forward a clean funding bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to discuss president obama's recent expansion of the deferred action for childhood arrivals or daca, which will protect a large number of

unlawfully present aliens from deportation. mr. thompson: the action poses a rage of unintended consequences. because illegal immigrants granted deferred action are exempt from being counted under the 2010 health care law's employer mandate which requires employers with 50 or more employees to offer health insurance, the president's policy creates an insetive to hire illegal immigrants over lawfully present works. it disadvantages the hiring of american citizens and those lawfully present in the united states the men and women who came through legal channels, worked hard, and played by the rule, by making it economically advantageous to hire. we offered legislation to address this injustice. i urge my colleagues to support the commonsense, necessary check on the obama administration.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? the gentlelady from michigan is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i stand before you today to recognize a federal agency that i'm proud to say that i was a part of for many years, the united states postaler is vess. ms. lawrence: i recall the pride and sense of responsibility in delivering the u.s. mail. i'm honored to share the most recent achievement of the postal service to you, sunday deliveries and other adjustments to mail processing was instrumental in allowing the united states postal service to set holiday season records with 524 million packages delivered in december, up 18% from 2013. the united states postal service has reported it delivered more

than 28 million packages on december 22, the busiest day and the largest single delivery package in the history. the package delivery recorded on december 22 was set as they delivered about 463 million pieces of mail. i want to take this moment to recognize and applaud the hard working individuals that made this possible and to also say another 118 packages was delivered on christmas day. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise to thank pee people of

kansas for having the opportunity to rerepresent them a third term. immaterial to work together to repair this institution and represent the voices of the american people. mr. yoder: we took steps to create jobs by unleashing the keystone pipeline, rolling back job killing portions of obamacare and helping our heroic veterans get back to work. mr. speaker, the american people are counting on us. now is the time for bold leadership to do great things. now is the time for the people's house to rise to the challenge and stand up for the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek reck mission? without objection, the -- recognition. without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: it is the fifth anniversary of the devastating earthquake that struck haiti.

monday marked the anniversary of the quake. the aftermath of the quake was unimaginable. estimates of as many as 316,000 people perished, nearly 1.3 million were displaced. this tragedy struck in a nation already hobbled by grinding poverty health disparities and food insecurity. it crippled the structure of government, destroyed national palace, ministry buildings and robbed the nation of some of its most talented civil servants. in spite of the many challenges, once again, the haitian people rose to the occasion. our nation to date has contributed billions to recovery efforts along with donors around the world. the american people and the haitian people deserve that this aid be delivered in the most effective way. my bill, the assessing progress in haiti act, has bipartisan support and was signed into law

by president obama. this bill, now law, provides critical oversight and reporting. last week, along with my colleague, congresswoman wilson we are asking our colleagues to join us to reintroduce a resolution commemorating this tragic earthquake. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, on saturday, a 10-year-old girl walked into a crowded nigerian market with a bomb strapped around her body. she walked through a metal detector and the bomb exploded, killing her and dozens around her. the device reportedly was controlled by boko haram terrorists. days earlier, boko haram

invaded with a town with assault rifles. news reports say up to 2,000 bodies had been found, many of them children and the elderly who could not escape. boko haram means western education is sinful. they have inflicted genocide in their reign of terror in nigeria. their goal is to impose shahrya law in that country. this al qaeda-affiliated group of thugs, bandits slaughter christians and muslims in the name of relidge only. 10000 people last year in boko haram terror. boko haram abducted 200 nigerian girls and made sex slaves out of them. these girls are still missing. mr. speaker, boko haram is not going away. they are part of the cancer of radical islamic terror and it has to be eliminated and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house

for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minut mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i rise today to call on my republican colleagues to just stop it, stop endangering the american public, stop endangering our national security and get to work for the american people. the department of homeland security should have been properly funded when the cronibus bill passed. it is to ensure our local law enforcement emergency responders, anti-terrorism experts and border security professionals have the resources they need to keep our country safe. instead, house republicans continue to talk about deporting kids and pushing their anti-immigrant agenda against dreamers and compromising our national security. this way of thinking, this type of exclusion is what divides our nation. in a time when we need to be strong and stand together, house leadership republican house leadership continue to turn their backs on the

opportunities to work together. the only way to fix our broken immigration system is by passing true, comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders, protects our workers unites our families and provides an earned pathway to citizenship. it's time to pass a clean d.h.s. funding bill and bring comprehensive immigration reform to a vote. mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> thank you mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to congratulate my alma mater, the ohio state university, on being the first team to win the college football playoff, go, bucks, after bet beagget the number one ranked university of alabama team in the sugar bowl, the ohio state university beat the number two ranked team, the university of oregon, last night 42-20, to become the

first undisputed national champion. go bucks. this buckeye team has heart, talent and teamwork on their side. in fact, they're the first team in history to be ranked outside the top 10 in november and go on to win a national championship. mr. stivers: go, bucks. this is part of urban meyer luke and braxton miller, j.t. barrett cordell jones, darren lee boza as well as the entire buckeye squad. go, buckeyes. mr. speaker, before i yield back the balance of my time, i want to leave you with this o.h. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gelen om california seek recogti? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. sherman: mr. speaker, i'll be circulating a letter for signature to the administration urging them not to prosecute general petraeus. it will ask eric holder to use

his prosecutorial discretion to close the file now and if the attorney general will not do so to urge the president to immediately pardon the general. keep in mind what the general has an incredible record of service to our nation. the items he disclosed approximate any, were to a colonel. they have not -- who had security clearance, and they've not gone any further. given his record to our country, we should not be spending taxpayer dollars in this prosecution. but here's the delicious irony. while the prosecutors accuse the general of disclosing confidential information maybe they're right, maybe not. they themselves we know, have violated our law and disclosed confidential information

namely, that they are making a recommendation to the attorney general that he prosecute. so if the justice department has unlimited funds to investigate and prosecute, perhaps they should start with their own ranks and prosecute the ranks for -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. sherman: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak about my amendment that is going to be offered to the department of homeland security appropriations bill. it is a part of our effort to stop president obama's executive amnesty. the amendment would freeze the deferred action for childhood arrivals program by prohibiting any federal funds or resources from being used to consider our

adjudicate any, renewal or previously denied application for any alien requesting consideration for the deferral. individuals currently in the program would be allowed to continue through the remainder of their deferral period. last year i had the opportunity to visit the u.a.c. facility and also spend some time on the southern border where agencies briefed me. the visits confirmed what we've known all along daca is the magnet for drawing central american children here. unaccompanied alien children believe they are going to receive amnesty. that is a false hope. there are also problems with office of refugee resettlement with abuse, physical abuse of these children and we know the american people want us to take this action. 75% reject executive amnesty. i encourage the body to join me today in passing the blackburn amendment. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts seek recognitn? ms. tsongas: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. ms. clark: i hear from the families in my district who are frustrated between the disconnect of what they need and the discussions we have here in congress and in washington. and only one week into the 114th congress the republican majority is back with the same divisive agenda that is at the root of the public's frustration. instead of focusing on policies that help families succeed, house republicans have introduced legislation that not only risk our national security but tears families apart. in this time of increased terrorists, what do these amendments target? american dreamers, young people

who were brought to this country as children. these amendments jeopardize our national security and do nothing to fix our broken immigration system. these amendments represent dangerous mean-spirited, divisive politics at its worse and i hope they are defeated. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: for more than four decades, the united states has pursued a policy of an embargo against the neighboring nation to the south cuba. president obama has taken the first steps towards moving towards the end of isolating the cuban people and the cuban nation. i applaud his efforts to re-engage in the diplomatic way and through tourism with the country of cuba. clearly the policy of an embargo has failed to bring down the regime of fidel and raul castro.

let's instead try a policy of engagement where the ideas of democracy and human rights can spread across cuba just as they spread across much of the world after the end of the cold war. the time for the embargo is over. i call upon congress to continue to pursue a repeal of the embargo and establishment of normal trade and diplomatic relations with the nation of cuba so that we can continue to where appropriate criticize their human rights record and engage them in respecting the rights of all people and in trade creating jobs on both sides. i yield back his time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 27 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 2, house resolution 27, resolved, that upon adoption of

this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 37, to make technical corrections to the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act, to enhance the ability of small and emerging growth companies to access capital through public and private markets, to reduce regulatory burdens, and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services, and two, one motion to recommit. section 2, at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 185, to reform the process by

which federal agencies analyze and formulate new regulations and guidance documents. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of

the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 3, at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h 240, making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. after general debate the bill

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

section 4, the chair of the committee on appropriations may insert in the congressional record not later than january 14 2015, such material as he may deem explanatory of h.r. 240. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas mr. sessions, for one hour. mr. sessions: thank you very much. for the purpose of debate only, i wreeled the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend from colorado, mr. polis pending which, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he wishes to consume. mr. sessions: during -- all time is yielded for purposes of debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to eth rhett their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, sord ord. mr. sessions: we are here due to failed liberal policies of the president of the united states. through his unilateral actions

taken in november and policies pursued by his administration for a number of year the president's policies have harmed the american taxpayer and specifically that is why we are here today as part of this funding bill to make sure that we address those problems that we see. today, the house of representatives will fight the president's failed liberal democratic dogma and provide for a homeland security bill that actually protects the homeland and the american taxpayer. last summer, the american people saw what happens when the executive branch pursues policies that are not in the best interest of the american people. over 70,000 unaccompanied minors from south and central america entered our country illegally. they did this because they believed that this administration would allow them entry into the united states and by the way, it looks like it worked. this influx was a costly mistake

for the taxpayer and for communities all across this country. federal taxpayers paid $553 million to put local schools at risk and stretch the resources of communities across this country to a tipping point. mr. speaker that's why we're here engaged in this fight. this bill represents condition servetive republican solutions on thousand protect the homeland and the rules of law. within this rule is a bill to fund the department of homeland security as well as five amendments that represent a united fight against the president's executive amnesty plan. let me be perfectly clear. i believe that the president's actions on executive amnesty are unwise and unconstitutional and they must be stopped. this package provides this body with the opportunity to effectively block and reverse the president's unilateral

amnesty reassert the rule of law and uphold our constitution. america became the laughing stock of the world by the way we dealt with this issue and it lands directly at the feet of the president of the united states. that is why we are here today and are issuing this bill to the united states senate to have them take the appropriate action that is necessary so that we may work together so that america is safe and that we do not have actions that america should not undertake. we have a number of republicans who wish to speak on this rule today. i look forward to hearing their thoughts and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he wishes to use.

mr. polis: thank you. i rise in opposition to this rule. first of all, when we have spending bills that make it here to the floor of the house, we traditionally have had an open amendment process for those appropriations bills. that allows members on both sides of the aisle to offer cuts, to move things around. at a time of bloated budget deficits why aren't the republicans allowing any cuts to be made from this bill? they're not allowing democrats or republicans, under a closed rule, to offer savings to the federal government from bloated budgets. they are limiting amendments on two other bills, a completely unrelated anti-regulatory bill and also a bill with regard to financial services that i offered an amendment along with mr. issa to improve are not allowed under this rule as well. it's a very bad precedent.

for congressional procedure. for her here in our second week to shut down ideas from both sides of the aisle to make either of these bills better beyond a select few ideas that have apparently been blessed by the republican majority. i heard in rules committee last night my friend -- last night, my friend the chair did as well a number of very good amendments offered. some i didn't agree with but i still thought we should be able to discuss and debate. i offered a few myself. but hardly any of these are allowed to be debated or voted on by the members of this body. instead, what the republicans have done is effectively hijacked the discussion of homeland security and safety to instead have a discussion about our broken immigration system. well, i was ready to go for that. i offered an amendment that would have allow loed us to vote

on an immigration reform bill as part of the rule, one that passed the senate with more than 2/3 support last session, one that i believe would still carry the support of more than 60 senators. i think it would likely pass the house if it had been made in order. but i was shut down. so instead of allowing discussion about a solution to our broken immigration crisis, the republicans seek to keep it alive, on flict for the sake of conflict -- conflict for the sake of conflict, and so somehow lump families and children in with criminals for the same enforcement priority. which makes no sense to any law enforcement professional or any of our communities, which is why we have a broad coalition of the business community, the faith-based community, the law enforcement community, all outraged over the most recent republican actions, would seem to cater to the far right wing of their party. rather than seek pragmatic, practical solutions to replace

our broken immigration system with one that works. with regard to the financial services bill, i offered a bipartisan amendment, along with my colleague mrs. issa and mr. ellison to improve trance paraphernaliacy, to modernize our financial reporting standards, to ensure that digital data was available and searchable by investors everywhere to increase transparency with raffed regard to companies unfortunately, it was not allowed to be debated or voted on in the floor of the house to improve this bill. this is truly an obstructive and undemocratic approach to governing. instead of the members of this body, democrat and republican, being able to work together, propose ideas to improve bills, we're presented with bills that are our way or the highway. bills that will never become law. bills that have the threat of veto from the president of the united states.

and are presumably only being done to appease the right wing republican base. well, we should have started off this congress with a fresh sensibility. we could have brought forward a clean homeland security appropriations bill, allowed members to improve it, to make cut, balance our budget deficit, to move things from programs that didn't work to programs that did. we could have brought forth a real jobs bill, addressing the needs of working families. instead, with republican -- what the republicans have chosen to do is play politics and jeopardize the safety of our country and homeland security over a debate that they want to have with regard to immigration without offering any solutions. one of the things i took away from the meeting of the rules committee last night and testimony from members on both sides of the aisle is that nobody thought, democrats or republican that this republican bill that defunded daca and undid the executive action would

solve our broken immigration system. republicans and democrats acknowledged it wouldn't. so rather than playing politics with our defense of our homeland, why don't we roll up our sleeves and get to work to fix our broken immigration system and replace it with one that works. the bill provides for consideration of the homeland security bill but everybody knows it's not a serious attempt at funding the department of homeland security. there's a manufactured crisis, the first step in a sure to fail legislative process that the president himself has said he would veto. why is anybody in this body, reasonable lawmakers all of them, placing the funding of homeland security at a time of increased national threat, we saw the events in france this last week putting our defense of our homeland at risk? yes, our president took action. some agree wit some disagree with it. he used the authority he's been

given by this body to establish enforcement priorities with regard to the 10 11 12 million people here illegally. guess what, mr. speaker, if we don't solve our broken immigration system, there's only going to be more people here illegally. instead of 10 or 11 million, it could be 12 million 14rk million, 15 million. until we get serious about border security enforcement and restoring the rule of law. this bill doesn't do it this bill says let's support children rather than criminals. let's prevent people that have registered, gotten right by the law, paid a fee, had a background check had their fingerprints taken, let's prevent them from legally working or going to school. let's hang the threat of tearing them apart from their american kids over their heads. both sides acknowledge that's not the answer. to fixing our broken immigration system. so let's move past this discussion let's secure our

homeland and let's get to the discussion of how to fix our broken immigration system, which both sides agree this debate is not about. this bill also provides for consideration of the regulatory accountability act and other repsych -- another recycled bill from the last congress. it's not an immigration reform bill. it's not a jobs bill. it's actually a bill that makes government function even less efficiently than it currently does. it adds 84 new bureaucratic hurdles to make sure our food is toxin free and safe to eat, it would bury rule making under a bureaucratic blizzard of hurdles and documentation requirements. this is a paperwork creation bill. this is a government inefficiency bill. the opposite of the direction we should be moving with regard to making government streamlined and more efficient. finally, the bill, this rule provides for consideration of the financial services bills which this body considered last

week but again, when something doesn't pass under suspension a procedure that requires 2/3, the rule should hopefully enable members on both sides of the aye to improve on the bill. i offered just such an improvement as did some of my colleagues. if the goal was to get to 2/3 rather than just pass this bill with a republican majority, why don't we begin the difficult work of making this bill better, of improving on it, taking ideas from democrats and republicans, to get this bill to the point where 2/3 of this body support it? unfortunately that did not occur. and this bill is being brought under a very restrictive rule. we can do better. we can do better than closing down the traditional open process we have around amending appropriations bills. we can restore regular order and allow bills to actually be considered through the committee process here in this congress instead of appearing with 48 hours to read for members of

congress without even giving the opportunity to amend them. unfortunately, in the second week here, the republican majority is already making governance, good governance, a farce. i urbling my colleagues to vote no on this rule. to show that congress can and will do better. if you give the democrats and republicans who serve in this body the ability to legislate, to offer their ideas, to work with members on their side of the aisle and the opposite side of the aisle and to get to a point where we can present a bill that the president of the united states will sign, it will become the law of the land. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman fromical reserves his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you very much. at this time, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman who came to the rules committee last night to speak about the importance of this bill, the gentleman, the former mayor of his town in

pennsylvania, mr. barletta. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barletta: i rise in support of this rule. including the amendment i co-authored with my colleagues, congressman aderholt of alabama and congressman mulvaney of south carolina. our amendment that defunds president obama's illegal amnesty program. -- when i was amayor i saw firsthand how illegal immigration affects a community. i believe my stance on illegal immigration is why i was elected to congress in the first place. i'm someone who has dealt with thises a small-town mayor rm i know what it looks like on the back end when the federal government doesn't do its job. simply, we are making sure that at long last, we enforce the law. first, it prevents the funding of carrying out the president's

actions announced on november 20 of last year. let's be clear about something. the president's amnesty program did not just begin all of a sudden two months ago. it goes back much further than that, to the so-called morton memos of 2011. they instructed immigration officers to ignore broad categories of illegal immigrants and halt deportation proceedings for them. . p short these memos told the immigration officers to view the law the way president obama wished it had been written rather than how congress actually wrote it. we defund the implementation of the morton memos. we also say that no funds can be used to implement any similar amnesty policies. that simply means that this or any other president cannot try to tweak their policies or try more trickery to try another end

around past congress without our approval. mr. speaker, this states unmistakable congressional intent. the memo says the president's policies have no basis in law and are not grounded in the constitution. we prevent anyone who receives such executive amnesty from being awarded any federal benefits. there are other amendments being considered, including stopping the deferred action for childhood program or dacca born out of the morton memos. i support that amendment and all of the others as well. mr. speaker, our constitution is clear, the president of the united states does not have unilateral power. in america, we also have a legislature. as such the president cannot simply make laws on his own. the aderholt-mulvaney-barletta amendment makes that clear. i urge support of the rule and

the accompanying amendments to the d.h.s. appropriations bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts a member of the rules committee, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this unfair rule. here we are just two weeks into the brand new congress and the republican leadership has decided to combine three major controversial bills into one rule. they aren't content to exclude amendments now they also want to stifle debate. it's ridiculous, it's shameful, it's undemocratic and it needs to stop. why are they doing all of this? to what end? so they can attach poison pill amendments to the homeland security appropriations bill. we had a perfectly fine bipartisan bill ready to go last year, but, no, the republicans would rather play russian roulette with our homeland security. they are being driven by the most extreme anti-immigrant

voices in the republican caucus. so we are going to waste at least this entire week and maybe even more weeks to come debating ugly anti-immigrant amendments that are likely dead on arrival in the senate and most certainly be vetoed by the president. i say to my republican friends, i get it. you can't stand this president. it's making you irrational to the point that you are doing real harm to this country. and i understand that you would rather tear immigrant families apart than keep them together. but you had the opportunity last congress. for months and months and months to legislate on this issue. you chose not to. instead you have chosen to make a mess of a very important homeland security appropriations bill. you have chosen to demagogue rather than legislate. with all that's going on in the world, with what happened in france, i ask my republican friends, what are you thinking? playing politics with our national security. for six years the republican have blocked all efforts to fix our broken immigration system. and then they keep wailing and

whining about it being broken. they keep punishing individuals and families who have been in our country for years working hard, paying taxes, raising families enough is enough. i urge my colleagues to choose fairness and compassion and to vote down this shameful rule. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas mr. sessions. mr. sessions: thank you speaker gingrich. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from rules, the gentleman from lewisville, texas, dr. burgess. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, is recognized for three minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for the recognition. i rise today to ep courage people on both sides of the aisle to support the rule and the underlying appropriations bill with its attached amendments. i do tire of hearing people talk about our broken immigration system. mr. speaker, last year in the united states of america 1,100,000 people came into this

country raised their right hand took the oath of citizenship, and came in legally. and it has been that way every year that i have been in congress since 2003. so by my arithmetic that's well over 12 million people that have become naturalized united states citizens in the last 10 or 12 years. that sound like a system that's broken? for comparison, let's look at other countries. the fact of the matter is when you combine every other country on the face of the earth they don't match half of the number of people that are allowed to come into the united states and take the oath of citizenship. i'll tell you what is broken what's broken is the enforcement of our immigration laws. we have seen that demonstrated time and again. the president made some unilateral decisions in june of 2012. and we in texas, particularly the lower rio grande valley, understand very much what

happens when someone makes adjustments without going through the rule of law. as a consequence, in late 2013, and then throughout the spring and summer of last year, we saw unprecedented amendments of unaccompanied minors simply coming across the border and turning themselves in to customs and border patrol. why did they do that is? did -- did they do that? did someone just suddenly wake up and say i'm going to make that dangerous trek across the mexican desert? it's because of child traffickers, saw what the president did and said here's the business plan. let's go to these families, charge them thousands ofle toars, with the admonition if you don't do it now, this door is going to close. rye now the president has the door opened for you to come in and get your amnesty. step up and get it while you can. what did the president do in november? he doubled down on that. the message to the child traffickers in tsh-around the world is, you-all come.

you-all come and it will be all right. but the fact of the matter is it is not all right. in fact, our homeland security is threatened. this is an important bill. judge carter has done enormous work to bring this bill to the floor. for that i thank him. but the bill is important along with the amendments. i urge adoption of the rule. i urge adoption of the underlying bill with its accompanying amendments. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions reserves. and the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, i rise to oppose this rule. let's be perfectly clear about what's happening here today. house republicans are holding our national security hostage to the extreme policies of their most radical members. i speak from experience having been one of the three or four

that started this committee back after -- after 9/11. you know that. a vote for this rule and the poison pill amendments that will follow is a vote to shut down the tent of homeland security. -- department of homeland security. plain and simple. it's a vote against the brave men and women in our border patrol secret service coast guard, local public safety departments, every day put their lives on the line. as the co-chair of the congressional fire caucus and the public safety caucus, i'm outraged that this stunt will jeopardize important funding under fire and safer grant programs. it provides community firefighters with the equipment they and all the departments to hire additional firefighters to keep the loss and risk of loss of life and property damage at a minimum. i welcome a debate about immigration. but this is another ruse.

this is an exact ruse whether you talk about border security or whether you're talking about quote-unquote, amnesty. it is a ruse. it doesn't matter whether it's this or something to stop immigration. house republicans have done nothing but run from that conversation. speaker boehner has been sitting on a bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill since june of 2013. he's done nothing to move the bill through the house. he hasn't proposed an alternative. and if you don't like the president's geckive actions to help adjust our broken immigration system, why haven't you put your own on the table? policies like the president's executive order provides responsible solutions to prevent families from being torn apart. don't we want family unification? don't we support that? in the bowel of our values, don't we support that more than anything else? keeping families together. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30

seconds. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. republicans have no solutions for these families. and they are out there. they are all over. it's quite simply unbelievable. you're willing to put politics before national security shut down the department of homeland security to block the president from implementing his solutions. let's not -- let's end this charade now. you want to have a debate about immigration? great. we welcome it. but we will not play along with this dangerous plan to jeopardize the safety and security of the american people. i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule so we can pass a clean -- and the secretary -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pascrell: says you are -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you very much. i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from ranger, georgia, mr. graves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for four minutes. mr. graves: thank you, mr.

speaker. i would like to read to you a few quotes. first, with respect to the notion that i can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case. because there are laws on the books that congress has passed. congress passes a law the executive's branch job is to enforce and implement those laws. the problem is that i'm the president of the united states. i'm not the emperor of the united states. my job is to execute the laws as passed. i can't do it by myself. we are going to have to change the laws in congress. i am president. i am not king. i can't do these things just by myself. i'm not a king. you know my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. i am bound by the constitution. i am bound by separation of

powers. there are some things we can't do. congress has the power of the purse, for example. these are the words and the statements of the president of the united states. and words matter. but even after the president said all of this in a politically motivated action last november, he pursued a course that could allow up to five million undocumented immigrants to remain in the united states illegally and without consequence. like my constituents, i am outraged. president obama defied the will expressed by the american people last november, and blatantly contradicted his own statements about the limits of the executive branch. but now let's be clear. lest others confuse this issue today, this is not a debate about immigration. that will come later. but this is about the rule of law. this is about the constitutional separation of powers. this is about the respect we owe

the american people. this appropriations bill, we are exercising the power of the purse. we are taking a strong narrow approach that will, first and foremost provide security to our homeland. and secondly, deny any funds whatsoever from being used to carry out the president's unwise and in my opinion unconstitutional actions. now, i have to say, the president was right about a couple of things. he is not an emperor and he is surely not a king. and house republicans are united in making sure that he doesn't get away with acting like one, either. and yet before the debate even begins, last night the president is already issued threats. is he threatening to shut down -- he is threatening to shut down the department of homeland security because this bill prevents him from implementing his own ideology. but make no mistake. a veto threat is a threat to our

national security. a veto threat is an open invitation to our enemies, and in the wake of the horrific terrorist attack last week in france, is the president really willing to compromise the safety of 320 million americans to appease his base and score political points? god help us if that is the case. today it is up to us in the house. let's vote to defend the constitutional role of this legislature. let's vote to stop the president's blatant overreach. and let's vote to secure our homeland. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from texas ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. i ask to revise and extend. i thank my good friend who are on the floor today, my good

friend on the republican side of the aisle, have failed to read the constitution which includes clearly the president's authority for executive actions and not as they have articulated in exec order. and it says in the take care clause, he has the ability to manage this government as president reagan and eisenhower. what i offer to say there is nothing in what the president has done but to exercise executive action. but i will say to them that secretary johnson of homeland security has said that we are placing ourself in a dangerous position. . not because of the president's actions. not because of the appropriations bill. but because of these enormous poison pills that are stamping and stomping on the president's right to executive action. i oppose all the bills in this, all of them have poi-season pills, the regulatory bill, for example, wants 70 criteria before any agency passes regulation.

yes, my republican friends, we are in a moment. a historic moment. france was more than a wakeup call. but what i will say to you, we can pass a marine homeland security appropriations bill and end this dangerous condition we are in. i ask my colleagues to eliminate the poison pill of pulling back from the president's constitutional authority. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has eblings pyre. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: i'd like to yield a minute and a half to one of our brand new freshmen, the gentleman from georgia, congressman allen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. allen: i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding. i rise in strong support of this combined rule and the underlying bills. specifically, i came to the floor to speak in support of h.r. 240 the department of homeland security appropriations act of 2015. first, i applaud house leadership for bringing up this clean legislation in a timely

nation and allowing the full house of representatives the opportunity to work with the will of the body which is in fact the will of the american people. the amendments approved in this rule are vital to protecting the constitutionality mandated -- constitutionally mandated separation of powers between congress and the executive branch while keeping the department of homeland security funded through fiscal year 2015. i would like to remind my colleagues who are opposed to this bill, just last week, members of the house read on this floor the constitution of the united states, myself included, and renewed our commitment to defending the principles in our nation's founding document. in that constitution, article 1 gave all legislative powers and authorities to congress and established the framework of our legislative process. it threatens the separation of

powers, ignored our constitution, disregards the right of the american people to have a voice in important legislation through their elected representatives. americans sent a clear message on november 4 that they did not want the president to act alone on immigration. now this bill, the accompanying amendments, are sending a strong message that congress will not stand by -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is not recognized. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you mr. speaker. i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on homeland security, mr. thompson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, for yielding me time. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to the rule. just over one month ago, i stood on this floor urging the majority to allow members of this chamber to fund the department of homeland security

in the omnibus. the majority did not listen. in the past month, even as the majority plotted to punish the department for the president's action on immigration, a series of terrorist incidents across the globe have brought into sharp focus the need for fully funded and fully functional d.h.s. first in sidney, australia, we witnessed -- sydney, australia, we witnessed a terrorist attack on a cafe where at the end of a standoff, two innocent people lay dead. the crippling cyberattack on sony pictures raised awareness of the dangers hacks can do. then in paris there were a series of terrorist attacks that have sent shock waves beyond the borders of france. the execution style murders of 12 members of the creative team of "charlie hebdo" followed i by the indiscriminate killing at a

jewish supermarket are not simply tragic incidents. they serve as a reminder that the terrorist threats we face are evolving and they are evolving quickly. as members of congress, we have the responsibility to give the department of homeland security the resources it needs to be dynamic and agile in response to these evolving threats, the underlying d.h.s. appropriations bill under consideration today, although not perfect, could certainly pass both chambers and be enacted into law with the president's signature. however, the likelihood, dare i say, nevittability, that one of the mor poison pill amendments that the rule -- more poison pill amendments that the rules committee approved ensures a d.h.s. shutdown or slowdown continues. and to what end? the majority decries the administration's immigration

acts. mr. polis: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman. the majority decries the administration's immigration actions but offers no solution or alternatives of its own. instead, it plays and replays the game of we will or we won't fund the government. mr. speaker, the game of chicken has come and run its course. it's time to provide full-year funding to d.h.s. so it can continue its critical mission. with that, mr. speaker i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from colorado has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. -- has 12 1/2 minutes remaining. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas who has 16 minutes remaining. mr. sessions: at this time i would like to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from the first district of georgia, congressman carter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: thank you mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding some of his time.

this bill is necessary to make sure that the negative effects associated with the president's actions do not cause long-term damage to our country. as a new member of congress i was sent to washington to represent the people of southeast georgia against the numerous harmful actions taken by the president and his administration. from the time that i have been here, i've been shocked by the actions of the president and the way he directly ignores the will of the american people. statutory law and most importantly the constitution of this country. this bill makes sure that no funds will be used to implement the president's executive order that allowed thousands of illegal immigrants to stay in this country. this bill also makes sure that no funds will go to implement any rule or regulation that has been issued by the administration over the last

several years. it's time to stand up to the president and say no more. no more, mr. president. no more rewarding bad behavior no more rules that ignore the will of the american people. no more ignoring statutory law. and most importantly, no more ignoring the constitution of the united states. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this bill. thank you, mr. speaker and i yield back the remainder of my time to the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. deutch: i thank my friend from colorado. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the rule for h.r. 240. it's sad, mr. speaker, that just two weeks into this new congress, republicans have turned a bipartisan issue,

funding our department of homeland security, into a cesspool of despicable amendments that cater to the most extremist anti-immigrant fringe. there's a blackburn amendment, mandating that we deport thousands of students who are as american in their hearts as you or i. there's the aderholt amendment, prohibiting the d.h.s. from prioritizing whether we deport hardworking parents or hardened criminals. and there's the schock amendment decrying the legal immigration backlog but doing nothing, absolutely nothing to fix it. guess whose amendment wasn't accepted? the deutch-foster amendment which would save taxpayers over $1 billion a year by ending the detention bed mandate, effectively an earmark that requires 34,000 beds be filled by immigrants every single day inside for-profit detention

centers. mr. speaker -- mr. polis: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. deutch: mr. speaker, i thought we were here to solve problems. what this bill reveals is a majority with no interest in solving our broken immigration system. if we had -- if they had that interest we would have passed comprehensive reform two years ago. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i would like to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from georgia, the gentleman, congressman heist. the speaker pro tempore: -- hice. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. hice: i thank the gentleman for yielding the time. i rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill, h.r. 240, the fiscal year 2015 homeland security appropriations act. mr. speaker, the primary responsibility of the president of the united states is to faithfully carry out the laws sent to him by congress. unfortunately, this president over the past several years, has chosen time and time again to

ignore our immigration laws in order to achieve his executive amnesty objectives. his actions continue to fund -- to fundamentally threaten the separation of powers set forth by the constitution that was read on this floor last friday and it needs to stop. this rule will provide the house with the opportunity to completely defund and end this executive amnesty. with the adoption of the amendments made in order under this rule, h.r. 240 will responsibly fund the department of homeland security for the remainder of the fiscal year and ensure the protection of our borders while at the same time restoring the boundaries between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. in addition to defunding this power grab by the president, we will also consider an amendment that will express the sense of congress that we should stop putting the interests of illegal

immigrants above legal immigrants who are being punished for simply obeying the law. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. sherman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sherman: if you trample on democracy, discard regular order, you can run a remarkably efficient house of representatives. this rule is an abomination of procedure wrapped inside another abomination of procedure, all wrapped up in a third abomination. it deals with three bills. but one of those bills contains 11 bills added up, one rule, 14 -- bills. add it up. one rule 14rk bills. let's look at the financial services bill.

11 bills, no amendments allow. all 11 have gone through the committee without trofse, gone to the floor without controversy. not true. one of those bills extends until 2019, when banks have to comply with an important part of the volcker rule. has that ever been voted on in committee? no. has it been discussed on the floor? no. and when the rules committee was asked, can we have an amendment to deal with this new matter which has never been subject to a markup or discussion on this floor, the answer is no. why is that? because we need to improve dodd-frank. the financial services bill contains quite a number of noncontroversial provisions that will do just that and we could improve our economy today and have a bill on the president's desk by the end of the month but no. the majority has structured this to force democrats to vote against nearly a dozen good provisions so that they can say

look at those democrats. they won't help the economy. they're playing politics instead of legislating. it's morally wrong. vote no on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much. that's a very sad way to explain what we're doing here today. the gentleman knows these 11 bills have all been heard, voted most of them voted on the floor, overwhelming majorities, if not -- >> will the gentleman yields for a point of truth? mr. sessions: no, sir. we covered this yesterday in the rules committee. and we intend to move forward. and they're great bills that will help the economy and jobs in this country. mr. speaker, at this time i would like -- >> mr. speaker -- mr. sessions: i have the time, i appreciate that. >> point of parliamentary inquiry. is there any method that allows me -- mr. sessions: i do not. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is under recognition.

the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much. at this time i would like to yield a minute and a half to the freshman member of this delegation, an awesome young man from georgia, congressman loudermilk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. loudermilk: mr. loudermilk: thank you for the time. john adams as president of these united states stated that our constitution is for religious and moral people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. what john adams was referencing was that our constitution is only as solid, only as resolute, as the willingness of the people to uphold the limits of its power. what has sustained the united states of america as the longest continual constitutional republic in the history of the world is our commitment to recognizing and respecting the limits of power inscribed in this constitution. a clear and distinct division of

those powers among the three separate branches of government is what we have all sworn to uphold. the president through his recent executive orders has seized the constitutional authority of the united states congress. mr. speaker while this bill does not bring an immediate end to the president's pattern of executive overreach, it does within the rule of law begin to restore the constitutional authority of this governing body. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleomolad mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for one minute. ms. castor: i thank the gentleman for yielding time. mr. speaker, this is a terrible time for republicans in congress to play political games with america's homeland security. our country and its citizens must remain safe and secure,

international travel border crossing, our transportation systems must be protected, and in florida this is an economic issue as well. in a recent gallup poll americans blame politicians as their top concern over even the economy and jobs, and this republican bill is a fine example of why that is. because at the heart of the house republicans' obstruction of homeland security is their inattention to bipartisan solutions and their continued dodging of needed immigration reform. remember last session the senate passed a bipartisan bill it was passed overwhelmingly, but it hit a roadblock here in the house and this roadblock continues to be a trag on the economy. -- drag on the economy. one particularly heartless amendment will be offered by republicans that directs young dream act students to pack their bags and leave america, even though america is the only country they have ever known.

but i'm perplexed because in florida our republican legislature -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 15 seconds. ms. castor: i'm perplexed with the heartless amendment from the republicans in congress because in the state of florida our republican legislature passed a law last year to provide in-state tuition to the same dream act students. now republican -- the republican congress wants to send them packing? this is unnecessarily harsh and inconsistent with our american values. i urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from houston, texas, seventh congressional district of texas the gentleman from appropriations committee, congressman culberson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. culberson, is recognized for three minutes. mr. culberson: thank you, mr. speaker. today the republican house takes an important step in restoring the trust of the american people in their elected representatives and in restoring the rule of law

in our nation. two of the most important principles underlying our entire system of government are trust and the rule of law. the american people in the election last november, mr. speaker, decisively rejected the aggressive liberal agenda of this president and the democrats in congress. and elected this republican majority to stop the president from doing further damage to our system of laws. further damage to our constitution. the american people elected us to preserve and protect and defend the constitution of the united states. but that work begins with trust. we today are doing what the voters of america asked us to do in enforcing our laws on the border to ensure that our laws are respected, to ensure that our immigration law is fair that it treats everyone equally as the constitution requires.

we are keeping our word to the american people to do precisely what we said we would do and that is to overturn these illegal executive memos, attempting to ignore what the law says the president must do. not even king george iii had the authority to waive a rule, a law enacted by the parliament. in fact, mr. speaker, once we have begun this path today of restoring that bond of trust, we will restore the rule of law in america, because without the law there is no liberty. the first coin, the first design on -- on the first coins ever minted in the republic of mexico, which i have with me, shows the liberty cap, liberty in law there is no liberty without law enforcement. and the house today is doing what the american people hired us to do to restore their trust and restore the rule of law. this is a law enforcement issue. border security, immigration is

matters of law enforcement. we trust the good hearts the good sense of the officers in the field to do the right thing for the right reasons, to enforce our laws fairly and equally. the people on the rio grande river understand better than anyone else that if the law is not enforced there cannot be safe streets. you can't have good schools and strong economy without law enforcement. so we in texas understand better than anyone else that this debate is far larger than just about immigration or border security. it's far larger than just the individual issues we debate today. we today in the republican house are honoring the will of the american people. we will keep our word. we will make sure that the laws of the united states are enforced equally and fairly for all. but above all, we will preserve and protect the constitution and the america that we know and love. that was the message of the election last november. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you.

i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california ms. chu. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. chu: the world is mourning. millions have marched in paris in the memory of the victims and stand against terrorism. yet at a time when we should strengthen our response against terrorism, republicans are playing games. by high jacking this bill with measures that dismantle the president's executive action, republicans are threatening to endanger the security of our entire nation for the soul purpose of playing partisan politics. despite claims of support for reform, we are not being asked to vote for a better immigration system. we are being asked to vote for a crueler one, a system of mass deportation. one that tears parents away from children, disrupts communities, and weakens our economy. one that replaces the open hands of the statue of liberty with the sign that reads, you are not welcome here. worse, republicans know that this will not become law. so today's debate siffs only to

placate an extreme wing of their party while making millions of hardworking and aspiring americans afraid and unsettled. undocumented or not immigrants are integrated into our communities and pulling a thread once woven weakens the fabric. i urge my colleagues to vote against this toxic bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much. at this time i'd like to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from raleigh, north carolina, the gentleman, congressman holding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. holding: i rise in support of the rule underlying d.h.s. bill and amendments. already the united states admits one million legal immigrants per year so long as they follow our immigration process. unfortunately, like those coming to the united states illegally, this administration wants to ignore our nation's immigration

laws and immigration process. the problem is twofold, mr. speaker. this not only undermines the rule of law in our country, but also unfairly treats those who follow our legal immigration process as complicated as it is. after this administration established dacca in 2012, unilaterally granting amnesty to illegal minors, the number of unaccompanied children at the border increased almost tenfold in just three years. the president's most recent amnesty actions send a resounding message to wishful immigrants that our nation may have immigration laws, but it's just not important that they are respected. simply put, mr. speaker this is wrong. as i support this rule, i support restoring the rule of law. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the geleom colora. mr. pos: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california

ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one m ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition to the rule and to the bill. for over 500 days, republican leadership refused to bring comprehensive immigration reform for a vote. this despite ample support from both sides of the aisle to pass bipartisan legislation from the senate. in the face of republican inaction, however, president obama may -- made the appropriate and lawful move to expand the tea ferd action for childhood arrivals program and create deferred action for parents. now republicans have decided to hold our national security hostage in order to placate the anti-immigrant fringe. make no mistake, this rule and bill have nothing to do with our national security and everything to do with tearing down the president's legal executive action on immigration. it has been clear to me, though that whatever this president

puts forward republicans will oppose. but it's hard to believe that given the dangers we face the republicans won't work in a bipartisan manner to keep our country safe. this is cynical, it's anti-im grant -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady is recognized for 15 seconds. ms. lee: thank you for the additional time. make no mistake, as i said this is very cynical. it's anti-immigrant. we should defeat this rule and we should defeat the underlying legislation if these poison pill amendments are adopted. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you very much. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from amleton, wisconsin, the gentleman -- appleton, wisconsin, the gentleman, mr. ribble. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ribble: thank you mr. chairman. it's unfortunate but the president has dropped a poison pill of his own choosing into the well of good will in this

chamber. with his executive amnesty. now before anything even gets sent over to him he's issuing a veto threat on the front end. the president has now made it abundantly clear he's willing to risk national security to protect those who come here illegally. but the president -- what the president should be doing is exactly what the gentlelady just mention add moment ago, working in bipartisan fashion tore the -- for the rule of law with the congress to pass immigration reform. but this debate is no longer about immigration reform. the debate unfortunately, isn't even about homeland security. the debate has become about choices. and the president's choices, the choices that the president himself has made in regard to this issue. and he will soon have another choice with which to make. i wish this was just about immigration reform because i believe, quite frankly, we can find a path forward in

immigration reform mr. speaker. we need to fix our immigration system. every single one here unless they are native american, is a son or daughter of an immigration. we -- immigrant. we need to address our immigration system to make it easier for people to enter our system legally and difficult to come here illegally. this appropriation bill does that he very thing. puts more border guards onboarder than ever before and creates the security that is necessary. mr. speaker, i encourage the president not to veto this piece of legislation but to work with this congress to do this the correct way within the confines of the constitution. i encourage my fellow colleagues to pass this bill. as fast and quickly as possible. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. castro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. castro is recognized for one minute. mr. castro: thank you, mr. speaker.

this piece of legislation is both risky and callous. it asks americans to give in to their worst instincts. if you or someone you know is out of a job, blame an immigrant. if an undocumented person commits a crime, they are all like that. we are at a hometown where there are growing security threats to our nation, and republicans in this house of representatives are willing to play russian roulette with the security of the american people. the american people know better. wide majorities support comprehensive immigration reform including those in my home state of texas. majorities disagree with taking away dacca for young kids who came here through no fault of their own. i leave you with this question to ponder, my colleagues. what do you tell somebody who is three years old, was brought here to the united states of america knows no other country and no other language but the english language, what do you

tell that person when you tell them that they got to leave here? this is the only life that they have ever known. how are they not as american as you and i? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from colorado reserves. . the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: at this time i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from the rules committee, congressman collins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. collins: thank you mr. chairman, thank you for yielding the time. i think it's amazing what i have heard here, i rise in very strong support of the rule and the underlying bills, many of which we have not been discussing because we are discussing the one that's the most effective in going after what the president has done and the funding issues but one thing i want to emphasize is what is not being discussed here. what is not being discussed is when we bring up a simple opportunity of restoring constitutional checks and

balances. my friends across the aisle have talked about what question would you want to talk about? let's talk about immigration. when they had the opportunity they punted on that issue, i wouldn't want to talk about it if i was them either. we want to talk about we're going to leave the country in jeopardy. no we're not. the president can sign the bill get become to constitutional order and everything is funded and their order is restored. what i find amazing is the blame on running other things, and even we bring up this, some of my friends want to bring up, well, other presidents have done it. it reminds me of what my mother used to say, if everybody jumped off the roof, would you? it's time. what the people of america tell us all the time is it's time for congress to reassert its congressional authority. that's what this is about. throw the blame anywhere you want to, dry to -- try to redirect us, but you're not

deceiving the american people. the american people to know the difference when you're trying to misdirect them. these bills get at the heart of taking back regulations that need to be brought back so our businesses can function, our markets can function and we can get back to doing exactly what we're tosed -- supposed to be doing here. as long as we hear the distraction, i know the american people are not fooled, i'm not fooled, i said what i said i would do, i came here to fight, back at the first of the year, to fight what was being done and i will continue that fight. that's the promise we made the american people. that's the promise the americans are bringing forth. jobs, people, and kitchen tables. that's what we're about. it's about what the constitutional fathers said we would do with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. doggett: thank you, mr.

speaker. the republicans offer a very clear immigration plan today. deportation now, deportation tomorrow, deportation forever. they don't just want to roll back what the president has done in pro-family recent action. they would roll back previous protection for our dreamers young adults brought here as children, who have so much to offer. republicans would deny them that opportunity just as they would deny an opportunity for families that pay their taxes, work hard and pass a criminal background check. they would deny them an opportunity to stay together. republicans want to deport pedro vialobos a young man who came to america at 3. he excelled in school. he graduated near the top of his class at the university of texas. and he hopes to work for the district attorney's office,

secufering our community from crime or maybe in some other public service. this bill does not just deny opportunity pedro. it denies opportunity to our entire community to benefit from his talents. i say let these dreamers help us build a better and stronger america. sadly we have had so many broken promises in this house that the day would come when people of good will of both parties could come together and consider broader reform. yet we are still denied that opportunity. republican leaders have apparently given up on resolving the broken immigration system and they will stop at nothing to avoid doing anything. this amended bill would deny the right to learn, the right to work, it would deny the hope for so many of these young people who pledge allegiance to america who have so much to offer. pandering to angry isolationists

is not a sound immigration policy. it's not what this country, or the -- what this country where the statue of liberty stands so tall, is all about. vote for the dream. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. doggett: vote for the dream mitigating circumstance colleagues. vote no on this nightmare of an amended bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back this gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i'm at the end of the speakers, and ask how much time remains on both sides. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has three minutes remaining. and the gentleman from colorado has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. sessions: thank you. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. polis: i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. polis: unfortunately, the republicans are playing games with our country's border

security and our safety. by tacking on unrelated measures related to immigration to a basic funding bill for homeland security, they're putting us on a path that could shut down our homeland security and endanger the people of our nation. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i'll offer an amendment to the rule that would allow the house to consider a clean version of the homeland security bill. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with other material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. we don't need to start this congress going down the path of legislative brinksmanship and crises of our own making. we shouldn't be treating national security like a political pawn. there's differences of opinion about how to solve immigration. there's differences of opinion about the president's actions. the venue for taking out those disagreements is not to bring

the homeland security of our country at risk. we don't have to attach these controversial amendments to a must-pass bill to keep our borders secure. we have no shortage of things we should be focusing on. there seems to be pent up frustration about our broken immigration system, i share that. let's address our broken immigration system and fix it. and pass immigration reform. i tried to do that in the rules committee yesterday. unfortunately, the discussion was not allowed under this rule, and i urge my colleagues to vote down the rule. instead, we're spending our time here in congress with yet another crisis of our own making, instead of solving pressing issues, instead of creating jobs. instead of protecting our homelands, we're putting a bipartisan, important appropriations bill right smack in the middle of an unrelated political fight.

the american people can no longer afford an immigration enforcement system that spends extraordinary sums of money every year detaining and deporting individuals with strong ties to their community and impose no -- and who pose no meaningful threat to anyone. we should focus on criminals rather than children. that's exactly what the president's actions do. if the republicans don't like it, we're happy to work with them to address the underlying issues of immigration and why we have 11 million people living here illegally in the first place. until we do, this bill doesn't solve a thing. but let's not get hung up over a side issue and make sure that we continue to protect our homeland against the terrorist threat. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. i urge a no vote on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized.

mr. sessions: mr. speaker, we are here because the law requires that the house of representatives pass funding bills. today, we are here because we're going to fund homeland security. and that we are. we are going to fund homeland security because every single member of this republican conference, and i believe every single member of this house understands how important the homeland security funding is to protect this country and our citizens. but we also need to understand that the president of the united states last year and perhaps the year before took actions which we disagree with, which i believe embarrassed this country. which i believe we were unprepared to fulfill the responsibilities. and that is directly related issues of executive orders and ideas that he had about illegal immigration. mr. speaker we're here because we feel passionately about the rule of law and the constitution of the united states.

it is the president of the united states who we believe has gone well past not only his constitutional authority but the authority that i believe that is vested in him well and faithfully ex-cuting the laws of the country, which is his oath of office. so we've gathered together and united in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. we're also going to follow the constitution here with the bill and send it to the united states senate and let them deal with it. thank goodness we have republican control in the senate otherwise, it might not even be heard with the other 360 pieces of legislation that the former head of the senate decided not to take up with that body to debate or to have a voten of. so we stand today prepared to fight the president's unwise and unconstitutional executive amnesty plan. it's time for this house to fight, i believe, for what is a constitutional issue and we are

going to politely do this. there is no screaming and yelling on our side. we have great resolve. we have an understanding about what is in the best interests of the united states. i urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous resolution. the speaker pro tempore: all time has been yielded back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it this gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: on that, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. purr suvente to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote will be followed by five manufacture minute votes on adopting the resolution if

ordered and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united stehoe piv. any usofhe csecaiod c ot e proin pao mm ppos erely protehe.shoe retave]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 242.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 242. the nays are 181. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker, on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. and this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the unit stee reestave any use oe cledon cora heou prngpotil iapuos i expry itth u.s. e reiv.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the ayes are 242. the nays are 180. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the question is on agreeing to the spomplee of the journal -- speaker's approval of the journal. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the

national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united steusof rtiv. anysef e odtied vef e us procegsolic o coalurseisxpss protehe.susof eave]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 261 -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 261. the nays are 160. one voting present. the journal stands approved. pursuant to the house resolution 27 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the

committee of the whole house on the state of the union for h.r. 185. the chair appoints the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland to preside over the committee of the whole house. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 185 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to reform the process by which federal agencies analyze and formulate new regulations and guidance documents. the chair: pursuant to the rule the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia.

mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: committee will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the american people are now four elections and more than six years into the worst period after an economic crisis since the great depression. despite some encouraging he recent signs jobs have not truly recovered. mr. chairman the committee is not in order. the chair: the committee will come to order.

would you please take your conversations off the floor, both sides of the aisle, please. the committee will be in order. will you please take your conversations off the floor. mr. goodlatte: despite encouraging recent signs, jobs have not truly recovered. wages have definitely not recovered. the rate of new business start-ups has not recovered. instead, permanent exits from the labor force are at historic levels. real wages have fallen. dependency on government assistance has increased. people have been giving up

because they can't find a confident path forward. in this recovery, we are not recovering. we are losing something precious. we are losing what has allowed this nation to contribute more to human happiness than any other nation in history. we are losing the opportunity to live the american dream. what is that dream? it is the dream that if you work hard, if you take responsibility for your life, if you reach for the opportunity that your human potential makes possible, you will be free to succeed. you will be free to pursue your happiness and as you achieve that happiness, your children will have a better chance in life than you it. all across this country people who have been struggling, people whose jobs and wages have been disappearing people who have been leaving the labor pool for the dependency pool, people who have seen no way possible to start a new business can feel in their bones that this american

dream, the dream that they cherish and children need is slipping away. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the committee will come to order, please. take your conversations outside. or to the ante room. the gentleman will proceed. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. what is killing this dream? it's not ordinary americans. it's not foreign enemies. it's not global phenomena. it's not natural disasters. more than anything else it is the endless drain of resources that takes working people's hard-earned wages to washington and washington's endless erection of regulatory roadblocks in the path of opportunity and growth. today the combined economic

burden of federal taxation and regulation is over $3 trillion. almost 20% of our economy. of that, the larger part is the burden of regulation. now estimated to reach at least $1.86 trillion. that federal regulatory burden is larger than the 2013 gross domestic product of all but the top 10 countries in the world. it is half the size of germany's entire gross domestic product. it is more than 1/3 of size of japan's. most important, that burden is $15,000 per american household, nearly 30% of average household income in 2013. no one says we need no regulation. but who can credibly say we need regulation that costs this much? america cannot possibly retain its competitive position in the world and create opportunity and

prosperity for all americans if the federal government continues to drop such a crushing weight on our economy. my regulatory accountability act addresses head-on the problem of endlessly escalating excessive federal regulatory costs. and it addresses it in clear, commonsense ways that we can all support. because it is based on principles proven in bipartisan practice from presidents of both parties since ronald reagan. . here's what's the most important, require agencies to require the alternative that meets statutory objectives. if needed to protect public health, safety or welfare, allow flexibility to choose costlier rules but make sure the added benefits justify the added costs. improve public outreach and agency fact finding to identify

better, more efficient regulatory alternatives. require agencies to use the best reasonably obtainable science. provide on the record but streamlined administrative hearings in the highest impact rule makings. those that impose $1 billion or more in annual costs so interested parties can subject critical evidence to cross-examination. require advanced notice of proposed major rule makings to increase public input before costly agency positions are proposed and entrenched. strengthen judicial review of new agency regulations to make sure the federal courts can enforce these requirements. in a nutshell, this bill says to every agency fulfill the statutory goals the united states congress has set for you, protect health protect safety protect consumers, protect the vulnerable, but you are free to do that and you should do that whenever congress gives you those orders but as you achieve those goals,

make sure you do it with better public input, better tested information and in the least costly way. the minute this bill becomes law, what will start to happen? america will start to save hundreds of billions of dollars it doesn't need to spend. that's real money that can be put to better use creating jobs and wages for our constituents, real money that hardworking americans can use to start and grow their own businesses, real money that can be used to restore the american dream all without stopping a single needed regulation from being issued. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from -- the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'll yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: members of the house, i strongly oppose h.r. 185, the so-called regulatory

accountability act. under the guise of attempting to improve the regulatory process, h.r. 185 will in truth undermine that process. it invites increased industry intervention and imposes more than 60, 6-0 new analytical requirements that could add years to the regulatory process. and they make no bones about it in this bill. as a result, h.r. 185 would seriously hamper the ability of government agencies to safeguard public, health and safety as well as environmental protections, workplace safety and consumer financial protections. that's what we are debating at this moment. so my greatest concern is that

h.r. 185 will undermine the public health safety and well-being of americans. the ways in which it does it is almost too numerous to list here, but i will mention a few. first, h.r. 185 would override critical laws that prohibit agencies from considering costs when public health and safety are at stake. imagine. we would pass a law that would override critical laws that prohibit agencies from considering costs when public health and safety are at stake including the clean air act, the clean water act and occupational safety and health act.

this means that agency officials will now be required to balance the costs of an air pollution standard with the cost of anticipated deaths and illnesses that will result in the absence of such regulations. at a hearing on an earlier version of this bill in the 112th congress, one witness, our witness testified that if this measure were in effect in the 1970's, the government quote, almost certainly would not have required the removal of most lead from gasoline until perhaps decades later, end quoteation. -- quotation. this explains why numerous respected agencies, consumer organizations, public interest groups, labor movements and

environmental organizations all strongly oppose this dangerous legislation. for example, the coalition for sensible safeguards, consisting of more than 70 national public interest labor consumer and environmental organizations say the bill will quote, grind to a halt the rulemaking process at the core of implementing the nation's public health, workplace, safety and environmental standards. another organization, very much respected, the natural resources defense council adds that the practical impact of the measure before us now, h.r.

185 quote, would be to make it difficult, if not impossible, to put in place any new safeguards for the public no matter what the issue, end quotation. now, i am not sure if the authors of this measure understand the deep criticism and reservation that the scientific and academic community have about the practical impact of this measure. another, the consumer federation of america states that h.r. 185 quote, would handcuff all federal agencies in their efforts to protect consumers end quotation. and it, quote, would override important bipartisan laws that

have been in effect for years as well as more recently enacted laws to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive financial services, unsafe food and unsafe consumer products, end quotation. do we understand what it is we are dealing with here this day? further the afl-cio warns that bill's procedural and analytical requirements add years to the regulatory process, adds years to the regulatory process delaying the development of major workplace safety rules and will, quote, cost workers their lives, end quotation. and as more than 80 highly

respected administrative law academics and practitioners observe, the bill's many ill-defined new procedural and analytical requirements will engender, quote, 20 or 30 years of litigation before its requirements are clearly understood, end quotation. what do we have in mind? what is trying to be accomplished here? my next concern is that this legislation would give well-funded business interests the opportunity to exert even greater influence over the rulemaking process and agencies. we already know that the ability of corporate and business interests to influence agency rulemaking far exceeds that by groups representing the

public. in other words, the groups representing the public already have less influence agency rulemaking, and we're here proposing in broad daylight to make it even worse, much worse. but rather than leveling the playing field, this measure will further tip the balance in favor of business interests by giving them multiple opportunities to intervene in the rulemaking process including through less differential judicial review. and finally this measure is based on the faulty premise that regulations result in economically stifling costs, kill jobs and promote

uncertainty. while supporters of h.r. 185 will undoubtedly cite a study claiming the costs of regulation exceed $1.8 trillion, the congressional research service center for progressive reform and the economic policy institute all found that a prior iteration of this study was based on incomplete and irrelevant data. in fact the majority's own witnesses at a hearing on nearly identical legislation clearly debunked this argument. mr. critz toffer demooth who -- mr. cristopher demooth testified that employment effects of regulation quote

are indeterminant, end quotation. the other central argument, put forth by proponents of this regulation that regulatory uncertainty hurts businesses has similarly been debunked. bruce bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the rationan and george h.w. bush administration observes, regulatory uncertainty can kenard invented by republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. in other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.

that's from a bush administrator who was a senior policy analyst in the reagan administration, bruce bartlett. not surprisingly, the administration issued a strong veto threat just yesterday, stating that bill would impose unprecedented and unnecessary procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them from efficiently performing their statutory responsibilities, end quotation. rather than heeding these serious concerns the supporters of h.r. 185 simply want to push forward without any hearings, markups or deliberate tiff process in this -- deliberative in this process

in this congress that has no political viability. and so i urge, i plead with my colleagues to oppose this very dangerous legislation and, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. peterson, who has worked with us across the aisle on this legislation for the last two congresses, and this issue goes far before that as well, so i want to thank him for his work on this and yield two minutes to him. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. peterson: i thank the gentleman and, mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 185, the regulatory accountability act of 2015. this is commonsense legislation, and i urge my colleagues to support it. our farmers, ranchers businesses are all feeling the

burden of increased regulation, and we need to act to ensure that they're not regulated out of business. we all understand how difficult it is to pass legislation, but it's sometimes even harder to get the regulations written quickly and sometimes you don't recognize the legislation that passed when they're done. rather than following the intent of the law, we've seen interest groups using the regulatory process to interpret the law in their best interests, and this should not be the case. h.r. 185 will create a more streamlined transparent accountable regulatory process and give the american people a stronger voice in agency decisionmaking. specifically the bill requires agencies to choose the lowest cost rulemaking alternative streamlines administrative hearings to provide a more -- for more stakeholder input and provides for a more judicial review of new agency regulations. .

similar legislation received bipartisan support in the house in previous congresses and i urge my colleagues to again support these commonsense reforms. mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm pleased now to recognize a member of the judiciary committee, mr. hank johnson, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to h.r. 185 the regulatory accountability act of 2014 and on behalf of my amendment to protect jobs. h.r. 185 is a sweeping revision of the administrative procedure act that convolutes the agency rule making process through

numerous analytical requirements. these requirements, which are largely opposed by the nation's leading administrate i law experts, would cause years of delays in rule making or deregulate entire industries through rule making avoidance by agencies. as a result of this deregulation, h.r. 185 would seriously undermine the critical role of agencies in protecting public health and safety undermining proteches across every regulated industry from consumers to health and product safety environmental protections, workplace safety to consumer financial protections. the only basis for this bill is the unsupported claims that regulations erode employment and economic growth. contrary to my republican colleagues' assertion that regulations kill jobs, a wealth

of unimpeachable, bipartisan evidence has repeatedly and effect i havely debunked this claim. the office of management and budget estimated over the last decade that major regulations benefited the economy between $217 and $863 billion a year at a mere cost of $57 billion to $84 billion. regulations don't cause economic loss, ladies and gentlemen. instead they have produced billions of dollars in economic gains. in fact, a 2013 study from the san francisco federal reserve found that since the recession, there is zero correlation between job growth and regulations. moreover, the san francisco federal reserve also found that there is no evidence showing that increased regulations and taxes have any effect on the

unemployment rate. if anything, weak growth was due to weak consumer demand, not cost of regulations. earlier studies by the new york federal reserve made similar findings. so what is the evidence that regulations harm the economy? the only evidence, literally the one study supporting the faulty premise that regulations harm the economy, relied on the absurd figures repeated by the proponents of this bill, derived from a study roundly disproven by the nonpartisan congressional research service, which found that the study's cost figures were cherry picked, inaccurate and based on evidence from decades ago without contemporaneous value. mr. conyers: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. johnson: thank you. indeed, the authors of this study have since repudiated its

use in policy debates and any of their claims should be discredited as ideologically driven. under president obama, the economy has roared back to life, unemployment is falling at the fastest rate in three decades, consumer and business spending have categorized the most growth nover a decade and our nation's gross domestic product grew at 5% between july and september of last year, the fastest since 2003 and that will continue to grow throughout this year. granted, the bottom 99% of americans have not felt the economic uptick that the top 1% have enjoyed, but that fact is due not to the cost of regulation, but rather, stagnant wage growth. mr. speaker, it's clear that our economy is growing at its fastest rate and i would ask that my amendment which has been ruled to be in order will rule the day here. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia.

>> mr. chairman, at this time it's my -- the chair: the gentleman from virginia. >> mr. chairman i recognize the gentleman for three -- yield to the gentleman for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> mr. speaker, i rise in strong support for h.r. 185 the proposed regulatory accountability act. simply put this regulation requires regulatory agencies to choose the lowest cost rule making alternative that meets the statutory objectives. mr. marino: in the 113th congress members of the jew dish yafere committee and the subcommittee on regulatory reform, commercial and antitrust law, heard over and over again

how these regulatory costs have been key factors that hold back our economic recovery and stand in the way of job creation. our regulatory reform agenda for the 114th congress begins today with the passage of the regulatory accountability act. it's a good place to start. after all it's been almost 70 years since enactment of the administrative procedures act. unfortunately, the act has never been modernized or amended in any material way. as chairman of the subcommittee on regulatory reform, commercial and antitrust law it's my honor to support chairman goodlatte and urge members to pass h.r. 185 a bill to restore bipartisan support in both the 112th and 113th congress, so the bill can be given serious consideration in the house, the u.s. senate and reach the president's desk. if the president is serious about job creating, helping small businesses, and growing our economy, he will work with us and sign the regulatory

accountability act, another important -- and other important regulatory reform measures into law. it's about time we deliver real permanent, regulatory solutions to create jobs. doing that starts with passage of regulatory accountability act. i want to leave the american people with this one thought, an example of how the e.p.a. environmental protection agency, is doing what this bill tries to prevent. i live in the middle of five farms. i've been there almost two decades. recently, the e.p.a. has attempted to get more control over farmland by saying if there's a rainstorm and there's a puddle, where a farmer -- or a farmer even spills milk, that through the navigable waters act, e.p.a. has control over that land. i have been living in the middle of five farms for a couple of decades. i have yet to see as much as a row boat go through those farmlands. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan.

mr. conyers: mr. speaker, one of our most effective members of the judiciary committee is the gentlelady from texas, sheila jackson lee. i'm pleased to yield to her at this time three minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman, the ranking member, distinguished ranking member, for yielding the time and i would almost attempt to bring back "swanee river" or some old song that reflects here we go again. this is a bill that has been recycled it has been recycled and it has been recycled. and i believe the underlying premise of the bill is contrary to the values of the american people.

this is proposed as a regulatory accountability act to generate jobs and opportunity and i rise in opposition to a bill that stymies progress, hinders clean water and clean air and provides mountainous obstacles to the national security of america. what is the underlying premise of h.r. 185? the underlying premise of this bill is to require 70 new analytical requirements to the administer -- administrative procedure act and requires federal agencies to conduct an estimate of all indirect costs and benefits of proposed rules and all potential alternatives without providing any definition of what constitutes or does not constitute an indirect cost. mr. chairman is there logic to saying you're streamlining the a.p.a. process when you're adding a mountainous tall

multifloor skyscraper of requirements? is it accurate to suggest that you're making the process better when you're causing agencies of varying sizes already suffering from the restraints of the budget cutting process that my friends on the other side of my aisle, are you suggesting that they can then analyze indirect cost and save money? we live in a climate, in an era of difficult times. as a member of the homeland security committee as our sec retear of homeland security has said these are dangerous times. we have already indicated our sympathy for the people of france and viewed it as a wakeup call. do you realize some of the agencies facing this crisis will be homeland security, health and human services? does anyone recall the tragedy of ebola when quick action was needed in? this undermines the effectiveness of the process.

it in fact -- this is not helpful when we entrust our agency personnel to help protect the american people against threats near and far. so, mr. speaker, i am asking the question what are we saving here? what money are we saving? why are we undermining the very protection of this nation? again, the clean air act, the clean water act, occupational safety and health act, consumer product safety improvement act and again homeland security. all of these very important elements of safety for the american people will be underlined by h.r. 185. today, mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to stand on the side of the american people and vigorously oppose h.r. 185. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expire. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: at this time i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan,

mr. trott. mr. trott: today this house will vote on important bipartisan legislation designed to rein in costly federal regulations. the regulatory accountability act will modernize the federal rule making process by directing the executive branch to fulfill its statutory goals in the least costly method and requires agencies to solicit input, of all place, the public to find the most efficient regulatory solutions. the act is necessary because ineffective, inefficient regulations from washington have increased prices, lowered wages, killed jobs and made our nation less competitive. there's no question that these regulations are hurting hardworking families in michigan's 11th district and throughout our great nation. the facts on washington's overregulation are shocking.

federal regulations now impose an estimated burden of $1.86 trillion. that burden is suffocating america's job creator, equals roughly 15% of every household and 11% of our gross domestic product. the regulations cooked up in washington are often unnecessary and have unintended consequences. i spent 30 years in business and have seen firsthand the devastating impact overregulation from washington can have on our economy. we cannot expect our job providers to grow and hire more employees if washington is creating uncertainty surprises and continuing to bury our businesses in costly regulations. every dollar spent complying with needless regulations is one less dollar that can be spent by families trying to put food on the table and make ends meet in a challenging economy. mr. chairman, the american people sent us here to work together, to adrets the many challenges facing our nation. they sent us here to craft solutions and create job and

make opportunities for all americans. so i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the regulatory accountability act so we can begin to lift the burden of federal regulations off the american people. it is time to get the government out of the way. i yield my time back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserve the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from virginia a man who has served the house judiciary committee with great distinction, mr. bobby scott. . the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. conyers: four minutes. the chair: four minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise against the underlying bill. mr. speaker, we've heard a lot about job growth. we just want to remind people that our economy has experienced a job growth in excess of 200,000 for 11

consecutive months, a record that hadn't been seen since the clinton administration, and 58 consecutive months of private sector job growth, a string that hasn't been seen in recorded history. and so continued economic growth and strong regulatory protections are not mutually exclusive. in fact, regulations is often necessary to protect the investment the american taxpayer makes in our economy and ensure stability, order and safety inside and outside of the workplace. unfortunately, this legislation will impose unnecessary burdensome delays agencys seeking to issue or improve regulations, burdensome delays that can threaten taxpayer dollars and the lives and health of workers. mr. speaker, i offer two amendments that would have improved the bill, but neither was accepted by the rules committee. the first would have ensured that inspector general

recommendations would not be subject to the potentially dangerous delays and extra hurdles found in the bill. inspector generals -- inspectors general are taxpayer independent watchdogs that investigate and seek out problems and inefficiencies in our government. for example, two unlarming audits issued last year by the department of education's inspector general found that criminal rings -- criminal fraud rings were preying on money available through distant learning programs. and the expensive bank-sponsored debit cards were used to perpetuate waste, fraud and abuse in the financial aid program. unfortunately, both of these situations the inspector general urged the department of education toic quickly issue new rules to ensure that billions of dollars aren't wasted. unfortunately, without my amendment, this bill would deeply impair the ability the department of education and other agencies to address similar known abuses of taxpayers' funds. delays in the inspector general

recommendations can also threaten the lives and health of workers. for example the department of labor's inspector general found that mine safety and health administration had a regulatory gap that allowed mine workers -- mine operators who habitually violated mine safety standards to easily avoid sanctions and continued to operate unsafe mines. the unfortunate consequence of these loopholes was seen after the upper branch -- upper big branch mine in west virginia where 29 mine workers were killed in the largest coal mine disaster in the united states in 40 years. following that disaster the inspector general recommended fixes that would close these loopholes and the administration quickly adopted new regulations that are estimated to prevent about 1,800 miner injuries every 10 years. had this bill been in effect these regulations might not have ever been adopted in a

timely manner. my second amendment, mr. chairman, would have also strengthened protections of workers' health and safety. the amendment would have exempted regulations, guidance proposed by the occupational safety and health administration to prevent health care workers from contracting infectious diseases. as it stands, the legislation could possibly delay osha's work force protections and make it far more difficult to prevent osha from -- from contracting lethal infectious diseases. it takes osha an average of seven years to issue standards, and this bill could add another three years, possibly delaying and essentially shutting down osha's rules altogether. mr. speaker, this bill would seriously compromise the agencies to protect both taxpayers and workers so i ask

my colleagues to oppose the legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan res the gefr virgia mr. goodtt m chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from washington, ms. herrera butler. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. herrera butler: thank you. i rise in support of the regulatory accountability act. this claims that the sky is going to fall if we bring common sense into how our federal agencies promulgate rules. i want to ask, really? let me show you something. what i have in my hand is the federal register. it's not the federal register for the year or for a number of months. this is the federal register and the rules that have been promulgated just for this first week of january. just a week. see, this first one here is for january 2. it's a little slim. you know, they had just gotten back in the office. the second one right here is for january 6. so i think they're making up

for it. this is just for the rest of the week. and believe it or not, that's actually a small stack compared to what happens when the juices really get flowing. now, here's the challenge with this stack. my challenge is -- say i have a small business -- and i do. there are actually small businesses in lewis county. it's a small area compared to the state of washington. they have a -- they've got a lot of rural folks who work very hard, whether it's farms or family owned businesses that they've been passing down. now, they're responsible to know -- that small business in centralia, they're sponl to know what's in this and -- responsible to know what's in this and the ones that come after it for the entire year. mr. speaker, we're not just talking about big corporations with legal departments and government affairs folks who are hired to comb through this. we're talking about mom and pop shops. we're talking about 50 people

or less. they have to dedicate a whole employee to know what's in here, or they could be in violation of a federal rule. i've heard it said you're more likely -- 400 times more likely to come into controvention of a federal law than a federal law. so actually it doesn't just apply to small businesses. it applies to all of us. we better know what's in here or -- or -- time-out. we could create just a little bit of space for common sense and that's exactly what this bill does. this bill says hey, federal agencies, you just have to take a few extra things into account like the impacts on the economy. like the impacts to the cost of tax -- for taxpayers. do you know we're talking about $1.86 trillion on the u.s. economy every year? that's about $15,000 per every american household. that's real money. $15,000 is a lot of money. that could provide a family of four in cassel rock with

groceries for 62 weeks. mr. speaker, we're not trying to bring down the federal bureaucracy, although some would appreciate it if we did. we're simply trying to bring some common sense into how they operate. look the regulatory accountability act delivers the reform that will make lives better for hardworking americans and hopefully it will help them recover a little bit of $15,000 they're spending on unnecessary regulations. we can do this, mr. speaker. mr. goodlatte: i yield an additional minute to the gentlewoman from washington. ms. herrera butler: thank you. i believe this is what people -- ms. herrera butteler: thank you, mr. speaker. i believe this is what people need to understand. it supports consumer protections reasonable environmental impacts. it doesn't jeopardize the health of our kids. come on. let's use some common sense. it simply makes it easier for that family of four. it really does try and connect the federal regulations with

real lives, of real americans and that's why this act is so important. that's why it's bipartisan mr. speaker. this isn't some extreme idea. this is something that brings good government to the people. we're trying to serve the people, not be their masters. i think this bill does just that. with that i yield back the balance of my time. i thank the speaker. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield now to the distinguished gentleman from arizona mr. grijalva three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you. let me thank the ranking member for yielding the time. and mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 185, the regulatory accountability act of 2015. a bill that puts us all in

danger by making it harder for federal regulators to do their jobs. this bill would delay regulations that prevent big banks from gambling with our economy. just as seriously, it would weaken the implementation of laws such as the endangered species act, the clarkt -- clean air act and the clean water act, that protect our environment natural resources and the public health of the american people. supporters of this bill tell us that regulations impose huge costs and prevent economic growth. as other speakers have noted, these claims are not just untrue, they're fabrications. choosing not to regulate polluted industries doesn't save taxpayers money. choosing not -- when we fail to prevent pollution, we impose more costs on the public, such as allowing unchecked emissions from coal-fired power plants for example, would mean more mercury and smog polluting our air and water causingress

picture tore ailments and causing premature deaths. when government allows polluters to lead the way, one need to look at china. china caused an additional 675,000 deaths in 2012 alone, this according to a recent study by the natural resources defense council. the failure to regulate is causing a massive drag at this time on the chinese economy. the bill leads us down the same path. the chinese model of economic growth at the expense of public health and the environment is not sustainable and does not represent american values. we have laws in the books today mandating environmental conservation and natural resource management through regulation. this bill does not repeal those laws, which have been a major benefit to the nation, to the american people since they were enacted. today's bill just makes their implementation less efficient, more costly, more time consuming to the very

industries it is allegedly trying to help. if this bill were to become law, annual regulations needed to open a fishery or establish fishing industry catch levels would be endlessly delayed. if it bill were to pass, it would delay the forest service for the regulations needed to allow projects and increase the potential for costly and deadly fire -- wildfires throughout the west. each year new fire seasons seems to break the record for financial costs in an anger burned. this bill, if enacted, would make that cycle worse. the bill fails to appropriate any new money to the agency facing these unnecessary burdensome requirements. instead, the agencies like noaa and the department of interior, will be forced to divert existing resources to develop and implement the regulations needed to fulfill this new congressional mandate. the results, for example permits for energy development on federal lands currently at an all-time high will be

delayed as will be permits for other activities. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield mr. grijalva another minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. grijalva: thank you. this is not about making government more efficient. it's about making it impossible for many government agencies to do their jobs on behalf of the american people. in the name of regulatory reforms republicans are intention hahlly cutting off the people who -- intentionally cutting off the people who oversee our public's lands and waters to their needs. the people ignore china's example at their own peril. federal agencies trying to keep us safe cannot do more with less. insfed of placing more burdens on federal agencies, we should provide them with the resources they need to do their jobs, better and faster and protect the american people. for all these reasons, i urge opposition to h.r. 185, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rothfus: mr. chairman, the obama administration released 300 new rules and regulations in the first seven days of 2015. this is on top of over 3,500 new rules and regulations the administration created last year. we've got a problem in our country. unelected regulators in washington, d.c. are out of control. from your mortgage to your health care plan to your child's lunchroom and even your own back yard, the regulatory arms of this capital are encroaching every facet of american life. agencies are churning out hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations, many of which have had a substantial affect on particular communities and

industries across western pennsylvania. washington's central planners are regulating solid, good-paying jobs right out of existence. the legislation under consideration includes a provision i offered last congress with my friend, mr. barrow of kentucky. our provential simply says if a regulation decreases employment or wages by 1% or more in an industry, it will be subject to heightened review and transparency requirements. the principle is simple. if bureaucrats implement rules that harm americans' wages or jobs, they must take responsibility for it. . i'm proud to support the bill and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting h r. 185 in holding federal agencies accountable. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: how much time remains on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from michigan has five minutes the

gentleman from virginia has 13 minutes. mr. conyers: thank you. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: i notice that my friends on the other side have not named one person, academic scholar, organization that supports this measure. i would now like to identify the letters that we have received on our side that have been very critical, very disturbed, by the gross approach of the authors of this measure. supporting us and opposing the

bill is the american federation of state county and municipal employees. the afl-cio is opposed to this measure. the american bar association is opposed. the americans for financial reform are opposed. the centers for effective government is opposed. the center for progressive reform is opposed. the center for responsible lending is opposed. the coalition for sensible safeguards, representing more than 70 national consumer public interest, labor, and environmental organizations and more than 0 state and local organizations and affiliates, opposed. the consumer federation of

america is opposed. the consumers union is opposed to this measure. the natural resources defense council does not support this measure. public citizen is opposed to this. the united steelworkers are opposed. the union of concerned scientists are opposed. the united states public interest research group are opposed. ladies and gentlemen, i think that our case has been -- case against this measure has been well made. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i'm pleased that my colleague from michigan has raised the issue of support for this

legislation. because there is a lot of it. and i have in front of me a list of 156 organizations that support this legislation, including -- and they cover a wide array of organizations and groups and businesses and small business associations and chambers of commerce but to name just a few, the 60-plus association. the indoor environmental and energy efficiency association. the aggregate and ready mix association of minnesota. the american architectural manufacturers association. the american chemistry council. the american coatings association. american composites manufacturers association. american concrete pressure pipe association. american council of engineering companies. american council of independent laboratories. american exploration and mining association. american forestry and paper association. american foundry society. american fruit and vegetable processors and growers

coalition. american highway users alliance. american iron and steel institute. american loggers council. american road and transportation builders association. american subcontractors association. american supply association. american trucking association. american wholesale marketers' association. american wood council, we haven't even gotten all the way through a's in this list which covers, as i say a wade awry of organizations -- array of organizations interested in manufacturing good quality products for americans, providing services like architectural services and others, and i want to make sure that everyone understands that there is broad-based support for this. i also want to correct a misimpression left by some of the speakers on the other side that have pointed to a study that we have not relied upon for the basis for this legislation

and call to everyone's attention in fact, at the appropriate time i will request that it may be made part of the record, and that's a study from the competitive enterprise institute c.e.i. entitled not 10 commandments which we're all familiar with, but 10,000 commandments an annual snapshot of the federal regulatory state. by clyde wayne cruz jr. which has provided valuable information with regard to this. another thing people said is, oh, this is going to add tremendous burden to the regulators when they write these regulations. i can tell you we don't have 160 different organizations supporting this legislation because they think their regulatory burden is too high. they think -- too low. they think the burden is too high and not enough energy and effort is going in on the part of those regulators to pay

attention to what they are doning when they write regulations. they've complained about the new thing this is bill requires. let me read a few of them to you. it requires documentation that the agency has considered the specific nature and significant of the problem the agency may address with a rule. seems to make pretty good common sense. if you're going to write a regulation you should be understanding the nature of the problem you're supposed to be addressing. it will consider whether existing rules could be amended or rescinded to address the problem in whole or part. dock yimet that the agency has considered reasonable alternatives for the new rule or other response. documentation the agency has considered the alternative of no federal response. in other words, they may not need to do anything. odocumentation that they've considered the potential direct costs and benefits associated

with potential alternative rules and other responses. documentation that the agency has estimated impacts on jobs that are associated with potential alternative rules and other responses. the requirements are like that throughout and they are common sense reforms. in fact, they are so common sense that these -- many of these were initiated by president reagan, many of these have been carried forward by subsequent administrations, including the current administration, and what we're asking for today is don't hide the ball on the american people when you write regulations. provide the documentation of how you wrote the regulation, what you considered when you wrote the regulation and whether or not that regulation is the most cost effective way to do it and whether or not the regulation is even needed at all. these are commonsense reforms and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan.

mr. conyers: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. ladies and gentlemen of the house, the president of the united states last evening has indicated that he will not sign this bill. he will veto it. if it were to pass. and i'm hoping that that doesn't happen. the measure fails in a great way. it would create needless regulatory and legal uncertainty and further impede the implementation protections for the american public. this bill would make the regulatory process more expensive, less flexible, and more burdensome. dramatically increasing the costs of regulations of the american taxpayer and working

class families. this is an incredible situation that we have to debate here and i am hopeful that the logic, the rationality, the threat of the executive branch to veto the bill will all cause us to carefully consider how unnecessary this measure is. i urge that we not support h.r. 185 and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, the vice chairman of the regulatory reform subcommittee. chip the gentleman is recognized

-- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. farenthold: thank you very much. i rise in strong support of the regulatory accountability act of 2015. there's no question that regulations take a heavy toll on businesses of all sizes that toll isn't just financial. it's also stress. it's also time. it's also emotional. dealing with the government is difficult. you know, just the dollars and cents cost of federal regulation has been estimated at $1.86 trillion, or so the expert tells me. that adds up to roughly $15,000 per household. it's simply not right for unelected bureaucrats to put that much weight on the shoulders of the american people without making all efforts to minimize the costs and give the people of south texas and everywhere in this country the opportunity and a chance to weigh in. in south texas, and texas in particular, we have seen how onerous e.p.a. and department of

the interior and other regulations have slowed job growth costing our domestic energy companies millions of dollars. this bill would put public discussion back on the table when it comes to regulations and ensure the economic costs are fully considered and minimized. we have a lot of work to do to peel back the needless, burdensome regulations that are strangling our businesses. this bill will help us plug the hole in the boat while we get rid of and start pumping out water. it's supposed to be difficult to enact laws. we have to pass something out of the house and the senate and get the president to sign it and it's get a law. but a bureaucrat can do it with the stroke of a pen. we need less government, less law, less regulation, not more. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia.

mr. goodlatte: it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino. the chairman of the subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. marino: mr. speaker, right now we have the worst of both worlds. more regulation and less scrutiny. looking at a recent seven-year period, the government accountability office found that 35% of major rules were issued without the opportunity for public comment. the g.a.o. also found a lack of responsiveness in the case of one obamacare regulation, one 4,627 comments receive bud no responses were issued. regulatory costs disproportionately hit small manufacturers which incur regulatory costs of $34,671 per year per employee. more than three times that of the average american company. our energy boom is a perfect

example of failed federal regulatory policy. oil and natural gas resources do not know federal versus state boundaries but it takes 10 times as long for the federal government to issue a permit as it does the states. as a result, oil and gas production is going up sharply on state lands and down on federal lands. finally, obamacare is an epicenter of red tape. in its first four years, obamacare's effects on small business amounted to $1.9 billion in regulatory costs and 11.3 million hours of compliance. this amounts to a regulatory tax of % to 5%. this is a -- of 3% to 5%. this is the cost of just one law's regulations. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself the balance of my time. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation which will help to rein in the

excessive power of the executive branch of the federal government and provide for common sense being brought to the writing of federal government regulations, saving american taxpayers and consumers billions, if not trillions of dollars. it is badly needed. it is long overdue. i urge my colleagues to support the legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be considered as read. no amendment to the bill is in order except those printed in part a of house report 114-2. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the -- shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent

and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 114-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? . the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-2 offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: pursuant to the house resolution 27, the gentleman from virginia, mr. mckinley, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is simple. it ensures that agencies must take into consideration the impacts on low-income families -- communities when they develop regulations. this amendment is based on a 1994 executive order from

president clinton that was intended to protect low-income populations from negative effects on regulations. burdensome regulations have a real impact on families regardless of their race or ethnicity. what makes sense on a bureaucratic's desk in washington does not always work in the real world. in fact, these regulations are hurting people, especially in economically depressed communities. people have lost jobs and are facing increasing prices for energy, food, health care and more. families who bear this brunt are not just statistics, they are fellow americans. we need to show compassion towards them, especially those most vulnerable. regulations, as you've heard, are costing our economy $1.8 billion each year, costing the average family $15,000. so what does that mean to the farmer in san joaquin valley in california or the coal miner in

kentucky or the widow on fixed income in marietta ohio? they're worried about providing for their families. what happens if they lose their livelihood because of a new regulation? the bureaucrats in washington are writing these excessive regulations seemingly are focused on saving the world and forgetting what's happening to american families. i want them to understand the impact they're having on people's lives, the cost of these regulations are borne by people who can least afford it not by the agencies writing the regulations. these bureaucrats should get out from behind their desk and come to communities in west virginia and georgia and montana and across the nation that are still struggling economically. this is not just about coal miners in the energy industry. excessive regulations are hurting farmers manufacturers

health care workers and small businesses of every kind. rather than blindly issuing regulations in pursuit of an ideological goal, agencies should stop and consider what they're doing, be more empathetic, take into account what will happen to a family that's living paycheck to paycheck or a senior on a fixed income. too often americans all across this country believe that no one in washington really cares about them. this amendment would help change that perception. let's show some compassion to people and families that are struggling. plain and simple, we must ensure that the federal agencies truly, truly take into consideration those that bear the burden of these regulations. and i want to thank chairman goodlatte for his support of this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time.

and ask for a recorded vote. the chair: right now let's just reserve the balance of your time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i rise against the mckinley amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conyers: thank you. the mckinley amendment as bad as things already are in the bill adds an additional requirement to the bill's more than 60 analytical new requirements for the rulemaking process by requiring agencies to also consider economic competitiveness and impact on low-income populations in the rulemaking process. now the afl-cio, public citizen and coalition for sensible safeguards all oppose this amendment because it is

redundant and inflexible. this amendment is largely redundant of existing requirements executive order 12898 already protects both low-income communities and communities of color. this executive order already requires agencies to take into account distributional impacts on these populations. and so i want you to know that this is not the way to go. this makes a totally unacceptable bill even further unacceptable. i would yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from

georgia, mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this amendment, which would have a devastating impact and consequences for minority and low-income populations. under executive order 12898, agencies must already account for the impact of rulemaking on both of these communities. the amendment, which makes no accommodation for a minority population would override existing protections while the underlying bill would override every law protecting the public interest and the rulemaking process. in short, these sweeping policy changes would be a nightmare for vulnerable populations and endangered communities. that's why the afl-cio, along with 70 other public interest groups, oppose this amendment and the underlying bill, which i listened to the list of supporters rattled off by the

other side for this bill, they were all trade groups that will benefit financially from this bill. no academics or others of objective opinions were noted. and i think the public should note that. my colleague representative bobby rush, offered an amendment to this bill specifically to protect these communities by promoting environmental justice. if the majority was serious about protecting these communities they would have accepted the rush amendment instead of attempting to mislead the public through a gotcha amendment, such as this. if the majority were serious about protecting the american people, we wouldn't be considered this misguided and ideologically driven piece of legislation, and i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and ilayield back. -- around i'll yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from virginia. west virginia. mr. mckinley: how much time do we have left? the chair: 1 3/4 minutes. 1 3/4. mr. mckinley: i yield one minute to the chairman, please. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for yielding, commend him for his amendment. i strongly support it. i hear from the other side of the aisle how low-income people are being taken care of already because the president of the united states has told these agencies to quote, take into account their status. but guess what guess what, that has no judicial enforceability. so if a low-income person really wants to seek redress of their grievances through a regulation that's going to cost them their job cost them their business, whatever the case might be, they have no recourse to the courts. among those who suffer most unfairly from overreaching regulations are lower income families and individuals. the other side has criticized our list of entities supporting

this but these are all job-creating organizations. i haven't heard many job-creating organizations who are opposed to this legislation. new regulations often represent the policy preferences of elites and pro-regulatory advocates. recent regulations aimed at driving down the use of coal and other fossil fuels are an example of this. what growing research shows and what policy elites too often ignore are the costs of regulations are often regressive. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. the gentleman has a minute and a half. mr. conyers: i reserve, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: in closing remarks, you just heard from the chairman talk about this as an executive order. i heard from folks from the other side this is an executive order. perhaps it's time that we codify this executive order. if it had merit back in 1994,

let's make it the rule, make it law. this amendment will accomplish that. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, this amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing. it would not change the bill's overarching deregulatory purpose nor does it address the many concerns expressed by scores of public interest groups that strenuously oppose the bill. i think the president is very sensitive to the working class, the poor and minorities especially. and i enjoy hearing this comment coming from the other side of the aisle. if the majority were interested

in protecting low-income populations it would have made in order the amendment of our colleague from illinois, bobby rush, who offered an amendment to promote environmental justice. the rush amendment would have safeguarded existing protections while mitigating the devastating consequences of 185 on both minority and low-income populations. i repeat, afl-cio public citizen and the center for sensible safeguards all oppose the mckinley amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. the amendment is agreed to. mr. mckinley: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 114-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: i rise in support of my amendment, to protect jobs. the chair: the gentleman has an amendment at the desk. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 114-2, offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 27 the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you mr. speaker. i rise in support of my amendment. it's clear that the economy is growing at its fastest pace in years while unemployment is dropping rapidly. according to the most recent reports from the bureau of labor statistics, employers added 252,000 jobs in december, exceeding expectations and driving the unemployment rate to 5.6% the lowest rate -- or the lowest level since the recession. there have been actually 54, 55 straight months of positive job growth over the last six years, mr. speaker, and this is an important consideration when you consider the faulty premise being offered in support of the legislation, the underlying legislation here that regulations hurt business.

and hurt job growth. they do not. my amendment would ensure that this rapid growth and progress continues by exempting from h.r. 185 all rules that the office of management and budget determines would result in net job creation. several of my republican colleagues have complained in today's debate about a regulatory system that costs american families $15,000 in annual costs. these figures rely on debunked sources that don't consider economic conditions or account for the benefits of regulations. . we even had a display of one week's worth of so-called regulations by one of my colleagues on the other side a short while ago purporting to show the sheer volume of

regulations that were issued in one week, when in fact a lot of those papers had to do with -- had to do with 34 final rules published during that period 31 proposed rules, many of which were minor in nature, and 277 notices of administrate imy knew shah, such as public meetings, when and where public meetings were to be held, and also the availability of letters regarding sunscreen products. so you know it's really -- tries to mislead by holding up a stack and contending that a business -- one business in one particular area has to comply with all these so-called regulations that are purported to be in a stack of papers. and that's just not true. it's misleading to the public.

in many cases, rules issued in 2015 have been largely administrative and minor. for instance, the federal aviation administration has issued rules concerning air worthiness directives, while the coast guard has issued its routine rules for bridge opening schedules. now if we didn't have rules for when bridges should be opening, and how to open, and how to warn people, do you think we could claim ourselves to be living in such a civilized society as the one we live in? we've got to have rules. i'll take note of the fact that when i went to kindergarten, we had a set of rules up on the board. everywhere you go, you're going to have a set of rules. the rules of the federal government, which are vast and broad foreign policy domestic policy, space cyberspace, i

mean, this country that we live in is not a great country because it chose simplicity as its motto. we have a lot of rules we have to live by and those are the things that help make america a great country and guess what, ladies and gentlemen? it's you and your family members and friends who populate this federal government. you are the ones who are the rule makers. they want to try to turn you into people who are trying to do something to hurt others when the only thing you're trying to do is do your job that will help others be able to live lives and create a better america for ourselves and most importantly, our children. so don't get it twisted. don't think that regulations are hurting you. regulations are causing what benefits you are taking

advantage of now. so, these are the very rules that undergird our nation's regulatory system and successful day-to-day operations. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you mr. chairman. to the point just raised by the gentleman from georgia, i want to quote daniel webster, who is also quoted right up there above us in the chamber he says it is hardly too strong to say that the constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. there are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. they promise to be good masters but they mean to be masters. i share and welcome the gentleman from georgia's concerns about the impacts of

regulations on the people and on their jobs, but the right way to address that concern is to join me in supporting this bill. it includes the roth cus-barr amendment that requires agencies to do a much better job identifying -- job impacts before they impose the regulations. the gentleman's amendment is the wrong way to address job concerns because it would give the executive branch a strong incentive to manipulate its jobs impact and cost benefit analysis to avoid the requirement of the bill including the roth of cus-barr amendment -- the roth fkus-barr amendment. it also says that the analytical

requirement of the bill must be applied in the first place. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. johnson: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number three printed in part a of house report 114-2. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three printed in part a of house report 114-2, offered by ms.

jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 27, the gentlewoman from texas; ms. jackson lee and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman and rise to support the jackson lee amendment with a little journey down memory lane of just a few days ago. just a few days ago, in northern nigeria, a heinous terrorist group by the name of boko haram killed 2,000 people pillaging and killing has been their mantra. their definition. a few days before that we watched in horror as three terrorists killed 17 people in the nation state of france. our allies -- our ally for many many, many years. our partner if you will, in the

virtues of liberty and democracy. and so my amendment speaks to the diminishing impact that this present legislation would have on the security of our nation. my amendment simply asks that those issues dealing with homeland security be exempted from this rule. the rule itself causes there to be some 70 particulars that have to be met when rule making begins. can you imagine subjecting national security to that kind of criteria? as indicated, this bill modifies the federal regulatory or rule making process by codifying many requirements. included in presidential executive orders and requiring agencies to consider numerous new criteria when issuing rules

including alternatives to any rule. we mentioned that in my earlier discussion. my amendment would simply exempt from the bill's congressional approval requirement any rules promulgated by the department of homeland security. as a senior member of the homeland security committee having served previously as the ranking member of the border security committee, i am concerned about legislation that throws a monkey wrench in the footsteps of customs and border protection, border patrol, i.c.e., coast guard, and secret service and many others. i ap am concerned when our secretary of homeland security indicates that we live in dangerous times. and therefore calling upon america not just to see something and say something but to be conscious of these dangerous times. can you imagine the necessity of a rule making that then must be burdened with 70 new levels of criteria defending -- defining the budget analysis or cost

benefit? yes, mr. chairman, i do think we have oversight responsibilities, i do think we should be responsible in those oversight responsibilities and fiscally conservative or fiscally responsible but i do not think that this legislation that's come to us time and time again and obviously failed is any answer to what we're trying to do. let me first of all say that this bill does not do as the constitution has asked and that is that we the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union in the beginning of our constitution, this does not adhere to that. i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. i'm reserving my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the plans of her time. who seeks time in opposition? for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i respectfully rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. speaker, every member of

this body and our constituents know that as we speak, the department of homehand security is in the midst of an unprecedented overreach, to change this nation's immigration laws through regulation and guidance. mr. marino: by cross -- bypassing congress in the will of the american people. how can we support excluding that very effort from the requirements of this bill. what is more the amendment seeks to shield all rule making and guidance from the department of homeland security, a department in need of good government reform, from all of the good government rule make regular forms in the bill. we should not do that. the bill does not threaten needed regulation in d.h.s.'s jurisdiction but assures that d.h.s. will avoid unnecessary and overreaching regulations and issue smarter, less costly regulation and guidance when necessary. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentlewoman from texas is

recognized. ms. jackson lee: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentlewoman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: let me yield to the distinguished gentleman ranking member conyers of michigan. the chair: for how long? ms. jackson lee: one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. conyers: thank you. i want to say to my colleague on judiciary, ms. jackson lee, that this amendment is very important. it exempts any rule promulgated by homeland security and as a result this amendment current law would apply to the department of homeland security. this is a very perceptive and important part of us moving

forward on a really critical consideration because 185 will prevent rule making and it's essential that the department of homeland security not be encumbered by such burdensome requirements. i ask unanimous consent to put the rest of my statement in the record. the chair: without objection. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much. sally capson formerly of the clinton and obama administrations, mentioned how valuable regulations can be to helping the american people. this is an impediment. i don't want to impede a regular willer to scheme i don't want to impede the coast guard if it has intelligence about an attack on a houston park with some regulatory scheme that doesn't allow toyota move forward or address that question.

what we're suggesting is there are obstacles being put in front of national security. i ask that you accept this amendment, support this amendment, by exempting the department of homeland security that's entrusted with the domestic security of the united states of america. i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment, which exempts the department of homeland security. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. ms. jackson lee: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number four printed in part a of house report 114-2. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four printed in part a of house report 114-2, offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 27, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i thank the chair. as someone who comes from local government i was encouraged to hear our speaker call for us to find common ground. i know firsthand the music that can be made when elected officials allow their commitment to improving the quality of life for our neighbors guide their actions rather than partisan ideology. sadly we're only two weeks into the new congress and the house majority has brought to the floor a string of divisive bills. last week we debated without amendment a plan to by pass the normal review process to expedite approval of the keystone pipeline. for the 10th time. . today we consider a repeat of antipublic health and safety legislation that was debated in

the 112th and 113th congresses. the seductively titled regulatory accountability act would actually effectively block new federal regulation and is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to roll back important public health and safety protections. what's more, my friends on the other side claim they want to reduce regulatory burdens. but their bill adds more than 70 new analytical steps to the final rulemaking process while jeopardizing science-based methodology. the union of concerned scientists warns that if this bill becomes law, mr. chairman, agencies like the environmental protection agency, the food and drug administration and the consumer product safety commission would all be subject to more special interest interference. would be much more vulnerable to legal challenges and even if those challenges are crucial to protecting our air and water and safeguarding public health they could prevail. that's why i offer what should be, i hope a simple amendment

to exempt any rule or guidance pertaining to public health or safety. this bill directs agencies to adopt the least costly regulatory action notwithstanding any other provision of law. meaning that the benefits of safeguards to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat would be considered secondary to the cost of those safeguards. even if the benefits exceed the costs. my friends falsely claim that regulations impose unreasonable costs on the economy and the industry. the facts don't justify that rhetoric. o.m.b.'s latest report to congress on federal regulation found the monetized benefits of federal regulations over the past decade alone are significantly higher by a factor of 10 than the cost. but why let facts trump belief? the american lung association surfay found three out of four respondents believe we should

not have to choose between protecting health and safety and promoting the economy. they understand we must and can do both. i'm curious if my friends on the other side have asked their constituents what they think. for example i wonder if the residents near north carolina coal ash spills, which is affecting drinking water there and in my home state of virginia, share the same disdain for water quality regulation. maybe we should ask the millions of parents who own a child car subject to a nationwide recall if they'd feel better with less rigorous safety standards for their children. my friends continue to perpetuate this notion that government regulation is a heavy boot on the throat of business. but a poll conducted by the american sustainable business council found 78% of employers believe responsible regulation is important for protecting small businesses from unfair competition. and leveling the playing field. i would gladly yield to the

distinguished gentleman. mr. conyers: i commend the gentleman on his amendment and ask unanimous consent to add my statement in the record. the chair: without objection. mr. connolly: i thank my friend from michigan. my amendment is an important step to protecting public health and safety. it will ensure the life saving benefits of protecting air quality, water quality and food safety, so that they're not automatically ruled out because of the cost alone. it will ensure, for example, that the cfpb can proceed with dodd-frank regulations protecting americans from risky practices that lead to the financial crisis and save lives by allowing the f.d.a. to continue implementing provisions of the bipartisan family smoking prevention and tobacco control act. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and protect the public health and safety of our communities. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise in

opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment exempts from the bill any rule or guidance pertaining to health or public safety. health and public safety regulation done properly serve important goals and the bill does nothing to frustrate the effective achievement of those goals. but federal health and public safety regulation constitutes an immense part of total federal regulation and has been the source of many of the most abusive unnecessarily expensive and job-wage-destroying regulations. to remove these areas of regulation from the bill would be to severely weaken the bill's important reforms, to lower the crushing cumulative costs of federal regulation. consider for example testimony before the judiciary committee last term by rob james, a city councilman from avon lake, ohio, about the impacts of new and excessive regulation on his town, its workers and its families.

avon lake is a small town facing devastation by ideologically driven antifossil fuel power plant regulations. these regulations are expected to destroy jobs in avon lake, harm avon lake's families and make it even harder for avon lake to find the resources to provide emergency services, quality schools and help for its neediest citizens all while doing comparatively little to control mercury emissions that are the stated target of the regulations. we point out to the gentleman and anyone else concerned that health and safety regulations are a tantamount concern of this legislation. in fact i'll quote from page 19 of the bill. the agency shall adopt a rule only on the basis of the best reasonably obtainable scientific technical, economic and other evidence and information concerning the need for consequences of and

alternatives to the rule. i'll also point out that the american council of independent laboratories supports this legislation. so i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: on that matter i would ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman request a recorded vote? mr. connolly: i am requesting a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part a of house report 114-2 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order, amendment number 1 by mr. mckinley of west virginia, amendment number 2 by mr. johnson of georgia, amendment

number 3 by ms. jackson lee of texas, amendment number 4 by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 114-2 by the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 114-2 offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation

with e it stee reestave any use of the claped cove othhous ocdgsolior crcl rpess exprpredy e u.sofepseates

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 254, the nays are 6. the amendment is adopted -- 68. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 114-2 by the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 114-2 offered by mr. johnson of georgia.

the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the committee will come to order. the committee will come to order. members are advised that this is a two-minute vote. this is the first two-minute d vote of this session. members are advised it's a two-minute vote. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the uniteds of repntiv. any use of osti coveragef e us edgsorolic o coeralurseis ererobiby t userent.]