yet still the high academics, that is something to strive or. it does not make a difference how you came in and how you leave. host: we will have to leave it there. the president of hampton university joins -- thank you for the time in talking with us this morning. guest: well, it is my pleasure and i have enjoyed it. i would like to thank your listeners for calling in. host: we now go to the house of representatives. god of all creation we give you thanks for giving us another day. in the midst of cold winds and uncertain and sometimes disastrous weather patterns, the consistent warm raise of light fall upon the good and the bad, to believers and unbelievers alike. gradually the days are already growing longer, but like the movement of your grace often unnoticed. lord, you are ever present,

especially to those most in need. show your mercy to the weakest among us, the children, the poor, the elderly, the homeless. and on this national day of prayer, may all your people be mindful among us. send your spirit upon the members of this people's house that they might be inspired to do what they're able, to care for those whom you have favored from biblical times, the powerless and most vulnerable. bless us this day and every day . may that is done be for your honor and glory, amen. the speaker: 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. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. mr. kildee: i ask all present to join us in the pledge.

i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia rise? >> to be recognized for one minute. the speaker: without objection. >> mr. speaker, on january 28, the white house refused to recognize the taliban as a terrorist group. mr. mckinley: calling them an armed insurgencey instead. what part of terrorism don't they understand? under federal law a terrorist organization must meet three criteria -- be foreign, be engaged in terrorist activities and intimidation and thirdly, to challenge the national security of the united states

of america. the department of treasury and the national counterterrorism center define the taliban as a terrorist organization, but the white house refuses to do so. commons says if we can't call our -- common sense says if we can't call our enemy what they are, then how can we find them? mr. speaker, my resolution is simple. it urges the administration to publicly recognize the taliban as a terrorist organization. we can use a little straight talk around here. i ask for your support of house concurrent resolution 13 and yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kildee: thank you mr. speaker. well, instead of taking action for bigger paychecks for americans or rebuilding

america's crumbling infrastructure house republicans yesterday introduced legislation to repeal and undermine the affordable care act. this legislation would undermine fundamental guarantees under the a.c.a. that you can no longer lose or be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition. this latest proposal would put coverage for things like maternity care up to the whim of the states, and it would include a tax hike on working families and would leave millions uninsured without any coverage at all. mr. speaker, this is not a serious proposal, and more than 2,000 days after president obama signed the affordable care act republicans still lack a serious alternative. thanks to the a.c.a. uninsured rates are a record low, hardworking families can afford health care. the republicans continue their obsession with stripping

protections from affordable coverage. this is the wrong direction for our country. we should be working and putting america back to work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i rise today to address the house for one minute mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. what a wonderful opportunity to set the record straight. i rise today to applaud my colleagues in the house for passing h.r. 596 on tuesday which repeals obamacare in its entirety. this bill also instructs committees to pass patient-centered free market alternatives because obamacare is unaffordable. i hear it when i'm at my son's football games and when i go to grocery stores. it's important that members in washington are listening to them because the president refuses too. mr. scott: today in thomas county in south florida, a $3,500 deductible will cost a 23-year-old $33 a month. and it will cost a 60-year-old $900 a month.

$900 a month for a $3,500 deductible, that's like a mortgage payment where i come from. and this is affordable to democrats. well it's not affordable and i have a task force that is working towards a patient-centered, free market alternative that respects the freedom of the american citizens. thank you and i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the life of kyle ian long who was born in sacramento on june 14, 1987 and died on january 10, 2015 at the all-too young age of 27. the son of james and tina long was born and raised in sacramento, california, attended local public schools

and was a graduate of the sacramento state university. kyle, i became familiar with when he came to work to me as an intern, quickly rising to a legislative aide as a member of the california state senate. kyle's passion for public policy and his enthusiasm for bringing people together made him a highly effective legislative staffer. during his tenure in the state senate, kyle successfully steered bills through the legislative process in california that helped counseling services for rape victims eliminated pesticides in schools and childcare. in an addition of being a member of the california state family he was a beloved family member and a member of the broader sacramento community. he died when he went to his local gym in the morning to start his daily exercise regimen, had a heart attack and passed away at the all-too early age of 27.

mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this extraordinary but all-too-brief life of kyle long. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, i -- a five-alarm fire happened in edgewater, new jersey. the fire completely destroyed the complex, displaced nearly 1,000 residents. you can see and smell the flames for miles. i rise today to extend my sympathies to the families and recognize and honor the brave men and women of the edgewater volunteer fire department who responded to this devastating blaze as well as over 500 first responders from 35

municipalities who went to edgewater, rescued victims and fought blaze for over five hours. firefighters rescued people from three floors, miraculously manage to prevent loss of life and injuries. thanks to the quick response of the red cross and other aid organizations to more than 1,000 displaced people were able to take refuge in the edgewater community center. on behalf of my constituents mr. speaker, and edgewater, i want to once extend my gratitude to all the first responders who answer to the call every day and help prevent further damage in this particular travesty. and i thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may

have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 527. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 78 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 527. the chair appoints the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 527 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend chapter 6 of title 5 united states code, commonly known as the regulatory flexibility act to ensure complete analysis of potential impacts on small entities of rules and for other

purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule the bill is considered read the first time. general debate shall not exceed one hour with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on small business. the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 20 minutes. the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, and the gentlewoman from new york, ms. velazquez, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino. mr. marino: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. and good morning, mr. conyers. it's good to see you here. six long years into the obama administration and notwithstanding some fleeting

recent signs jobs have yet to recover from the recession. wages also have not recovered, and the rate of new business startups has not recovered as well. instead, permanent exits from the labor force are at historical levels. real wages have fallen. dependency on government assistance has increased. our economy is failing to give enough hardworking americans the confidence they need to start new small businesses and create new jobs. at the root of our problem are more than -- or more than anything else the endless dream of washington of hard-earned income that working people and small businesses need to turn things around in their homes and communities and washington's endless placement of regulatory roadblocks in the path of opportunity and growth. that regulatory burden hits

small businesses especially hard. small businesses generate 63% of net new private sector jobs and employ nearly half of america's private sector workers. yet, they have to pay significantly more to comply with federal regulations that do larger -- than do larger employers. poll after poll has demonstrated that the level of federal regulations coming from washington is at the top of the list of obstacles faced by america's small business our top job creators. this is not fair, and it is exactly the wrong burden to place on small businesses as this nation struggles to produce true jobs and wages recovery. congress can and should act to free small businesses the burdens and wastes associated with excessive federal regulations so that more jobs

will be available to americans trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. that is why prompt passage of the small business regulatory flexibility improvements act is so important. this legislation will for the first time in nearly 20 years, overhaul the laws that govern how federal regulators should consider and minimize the adverse impacts of new regulations on small businesses. primarily, the bill reinforces the regulatory flexibility act of 1980 and the small business regulatory enforcement fairness act of 1996. it only requires agencies to do what current law tries to achieve and what common sense dictates should be done. however current law is bessette by loopholes and those loopholes must be closed. that is what the small business regulatory flexibility

improvements act at long last does. for example, the bill mandates that all agencies not just the current few, work with small businesses review panels early in the rulemaking process for major rules before agencies become entrenched in their proposed path to help small businesses better and more effectively point out to agencies what is the best path. . the bill requires the agencies to assess not just the direct effect of new regulations on small businesses but also indirect which often can be substantial. the bill for the first time authorizes the small business administration's chief counsel for advocacy to be the one consistent authority on regulatory flexibility requirements, law imposes on all agencies. this will at long last curb the agency's tendency to interpret

the law to suit their own individual whims and will force agencies to focus on the common needs of small business. the minute this bill becomes law, what will start to happen? small businesses will have a real chance to be heard before agencies effectively make up their minds. agencies will have better information upon which to tailor their regulations to reduce unnecessary burdens on small businesses. agencies will have fewer opportunities to escape requirements to hear those businesses and gather that better information. and small businesses will be freer than they have been in decades to devote their resources to what they do best, create the new jobs. products and services that can drive the economy forward to true and lasting recovery. the small business regulatory flexibility improvements act recognizes that economic growth

ultimately depends on job creators, not regulators. it represents a critical means to convert the recognition into reality. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you. mr. speaker h.r. 527, the small business regulatory flexibility improvements act threatens to substantially undermine agency's ability to effectively regulate areas such as consumer health and product safety environmental protections, workplace safety, and financial industry misconduct. under the guise of protecting small businesses from allegedly

burdensome regulatory requirements this bill is just another attempt to prevent regulatory agencies from promulgating regulations that promote and protect the health and safety of americans. overwhelm regulatory agencies with unnecessary and costly analysis. give well financed businesses and anti-regulatory organizations even more opportunities to thwart the rule making process. so this explains why the administration has threatened to veto this legislation, stating that the bill would seriously undermine the ability of agencies to execute their statutory mandates. and impede the ability of agencies to provide the public

with basic protections. it also explains why many of the nation's leading consumer, labor, and environmental organizations have expressed similar concerns about this "dangerous" measure. including the afl-cio, the american lung association, the consumer federation of america, consumers union, the natural resources defense counsel, public citizen the united auto workers and the national women's law center. one of my principal concerns about this bill is that it could jeopardize america's health and safety. our federal agencies are charged with promulgating regulations

that impact virtually on every aspect of our lives. including the air we breathe, the water we drink the food we eat the cars we drive, and even the toys we give our children. small businesses like all businesses provide services and goods that also affect our lives. so it makes no difference to a victim who breathes contaminated air or drinks poison water whether the hazards were caused by a small or large business. but the far-reaching legislation before us today would undermine the ability of federal agencies to quickly respond to emergent health and safety concern. section 5 of the bill, for example, repeals the authority under the current law that allows an agency to waive or

delay the initial analysis required under the regulatory flexibility act. in response to an emergency that makes compliance or timely compliance impracticable. so if there's a widespread e. coli outbreak or imminent environmental disaster that could be queckly addressed through regulation -- quickly addressed through regulation, this bill says, don't worry, don't rush. let's have the chief counsel for advocacy decide. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. marino: i hear constantly when we are on the floor with bills that sometimes are bipartisan, sometimes are not the president said he's going to veto. he's going to veto. i hope that's not the case

because when it comes to saying the president's going to veto and actually doing it are two different things. i hope the president works with us on this. again we extend our hand across the aisle here and on the other side of this capitol to simply say to the regulators, this bill does not want to regulate the regulators. it wants the regulators to use common sense, get input from the american people the middle class, the people who create jobs, the small businesses, to see what they have to say. i worked at a factory before i went to college and law school and worked my way up to mid level management and when we did things, i brought in everyone the people that even worked the machinery, and we talked about things. we resolved many, many things. but we got input from everyone. as far as letters from people who support the bill, i have a list of almost -- of 159 names and businesses.

this is dated february 3, 2015, from a to z from add heavesive and sealing council, to wood working machinery industry associations, and all of these 159 small businesses support this legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i am pleased now to recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise in opposition to h.r. 527, the small business regulatory flexibility improvements act. i oppose this legislation which would paralyze agency rule making through unworkable, complex requirements while aggrandizing the powers of the small business administration's office of advocacy with broad authority to act as the gatekeeper of our nation's

regulatory system. h.r. 527 would allow for large regulated industries to manipulate the regulatory system in their favor while delaying or blocking critical safety guards to safeguard our nation's food supply, environment, and work force. that's why the american sustainable business council, a coalition of partner organizations representing over 200,000 businesses and more than 325,000 business professionals, oppose this legislation. this coalition notes that h.r. 3527 would -- h.r. 527 would erode, quote the operational compassibility of regulatory agencies to do their jobs, end quote. allowing for the largest firms to further dominate the marketplace. in other words h.r. 527 is a thinly veiled handout to large

corporations. mr. chairman, americans support smart regulation across party lines but not deregulation. over 70% of americans support strong rules to ensure an open internet by a 2-1 margin, americans across the political spectrum support rules to address climate change by limiting the emissions from coal-fired plants. 60% of americans support strict regulation of financial institutions, tougher enforcement, and remain deeply concerned about dangerous financial practices. these are the same rules in the crosshairs of the radical deregulatory agenda of my republican colleagues. dangerous policies like h.r. 527 echo the same laisez faire rhetoric of deregulation that led to the great depression.

and the great recession. h.r. 527 is more of the same. another handout for the large corporate interests, that's what this is. another bill designed to deregulate industries instead of promoting actual governance. to deceive americans through fuzzy math and untried and unfounded rhetoric. mr. speaker we need real solutions to help real people. we need legislation that creates middle class security and opportunity. and we need sensible regulations that protect american families from financial ruin that encourage competition, and that bring predatory financial practices to an end. legislation that brings the united states in conformity with the rest of the world's employment policies by guaranteeing paid sick leave and

parental leave. i should say industrialized the world's industrialized economies eemployment practices. according to the center for women and work, paid family leave increases wages for women with children while saving the federal government funds that would otherwise be allocated to assistance programs. legislation that increases our global competitiveness by creating an affordable higher education. strong evidence from a department of education report roundly demonstrates that investing in our education system expands job opportunities boosts america's competitiveness, and supports the kind of income mobility that is fundamental to a growing economy. in other words, what we need is actual governance that helps middle class families, grows the economy and promotes international competitiveness. what we don't need is yet

another deregulatory bill that would increase complexity in our regulatory system while placing a finger on the scales in favor of corporations and against the public interest. i ask that my colleagues oppose h.r. 527 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the -- the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. marino: mr. speaker, i have been doing research over the couple days and in this administration alone has implemented over 75,000 pages of new regulation. just read some figures earlier on this morning that if we get rid of this ridiculous regulation -- i'm not saying all regulation. we do need oversight and regulation almost $1 trillion a year will be added to the economy, and almost a million people will be added to work on a yearly basis.

this is just excellent stuff. i want to give you an example from my district, pennsylvania's 10th district, and i live in a little willage called cogian station outside of williamsport, home of little league world series baseball, that i live in the middle of five farms, i have been there for 15 years. and give you an example pursuant to the navigable waters act, the army corps of engineers and e.p.a. have said that if it rains and a puddle forms on the farm in an attempt for this administration to get more control over our lives, because of the navigable waters act, e.p.a. and army corps have control now over that farm and can shut it down. now, i have been there for 15 years in the middle of these five farms, and i have yet to see as much as a rowboat go

through. so this is just an example of how ridiculous this legislation can get. mr. speaker, with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i reserve. . the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. marnmarn mr. speaker, i have the -- mr. marino: mr. speaker, i have the distinct honor to ask my good friend, mr. huelskamp from kansas, to speak on behalf of us for two minutes. the chair: i'm sorry, two minutes? mr. marino: two minutes, sir. the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. huelskamp: thank you mr. speaker. here in washington, d.c., i believe we have too many people working on k street looking out for wall street when we should be instead fighting for main street.

it is our main street businesses, our small businesses that are the heart and soul of our economy, and without which there will be no economic recovery. america has slogged through six years of a lackluster economy, in part because our hardworking small business men and women are strangled by this administration's overregulation. during my 267 town hall meetings throughout my district in the last four years, the number one complaint is this. there is too much regulation on small business from faceless, nameless bureaucrats in washington, d.c., who don't understand the needs of rural america. it is time for some red tape relief. it is time for some regulatory certainty. it is time to free up main street so they can kick-start our economy and get america back to work. as an active member of the small business committee, i encourage my colleagues to join

me and millions and millions of small business entrepreneurs all across america and pass this bill today. i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: i'd like to continue our discussion on this side. another problem with this bill, my colleagues, is that it will waste millions of taxpayer dollars by forcing agencies to redirect their scarce resources to meet the bill's burdensome compliance requirements. section 6 of the bill, for example would require agencies to review not only all rules currently in effect but in addition, all guidance

documents in effect as of the bill's date of enactment. now, we're talking about thousands of pages of regulations in the code of federal regulations and several hundred thousand guidance documents. so what's to be gained by that? it's no wonder that the congressional budget office estimated that it would cost $45 million over a five-year period to implement the new requirements imposed under a substantively similar bill considered in the last congress. rather than burdening agencies responsible for protecting our health and safety, we should be exploring constructive ways to help small business comply with these regulations. finally, this bill will do

little to help small businesses while simultaneously giving corporate interests increased control over the rulemaking process. the bill's expansion in section 8 of judicial review to include challenges to the adequacy of regulatory flexibility analysis would open the door to endless litigation by well-funded anti-regulatory business interests who could challenge agency compliance with the legislation's numerous vague, speculative and cumbersome, analytical and other requirements. i think we get the drift here where they're going and where they're coming from. i share my colleagues' belief that small business plays an important role in our economy, but this bill does nothing to alleviate the burden -- the

purported burden on small entities of complying with federal regulations. in fact it includes no provision that offers assistance to small entities whether through subsidies government guaranteed loans, preferential tax treatment for small firms or fully funded compliance assistance offices. instead, the bill merely shows the power of professional lobbying class in washington, creating opportunities for a well-funded business interest to intervene in the process. this is very harmful a bill that puts the health and safety of all americans at risk while adding nothing to the efficiency or

cost-effectiveness of agency rulemaking. and so therefore i urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. marino: mr. speaker may i inquire, has the gentleman closed or do you have other speakers? mr. conyers: we're prepared to yield back if you're going to close. mr. marino: i have no others. does the gentleman yield back? mr. conyers: yes mr. chairman, i will yield back. mr. marino: and since it's my time, i will go last. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania.

for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. chabot: mr. chairman, we're handling the small business portion of this. mr. marino: excuse me, i did not yield back. i did not yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. mr. marino: i did not yield back, sir. mr. speaker, i did not yield back. iry serve my time. -- i reserve my time. the chair: you reserve your time. mr. marino: i'm going to give my statement to close. and how much time do i have mr. speaker? the chair: 10 minutes. mr. marino: all right. i will not take 10 minutes. mr. speaker, i understand the responsibility of having oversight over any business.

let me give you a couple examples, again, from my district where a small community bank who is the primary lender of small businesses had to, instead of hiring more tellers to expand the business and provide a better service for their small business clients, had to hire three people just to review and keep up with regulatory reform that applies to large national and international banks who are lending hundreds of millions of dollars. that's not the case with smalltown banks. they're lending money to the young man and woman who got a job, saved some money, wants to buy a car and has to go to the bank and say, can you lend me $10,000, and the paperwork that

the bank has to go through to do that is costing jobs and costing our economy. i just got a call yesterday from one of my constituents. the amish in my district were putting a roof on a small barn that he had. osha stopped by and shut it down and fined the amish because they didn't have helmets on. they only had their straw hats. so he put them out of work for a couple of weeks. they had to pay a fine and then they have to go by helmets to put a small roof on a small barn. i have a constituent from my district who has a little grocery store and he just had a

shipment of bread delivered and it just so happened that an inspector was there and the bread was brought in through the dock door and sat next to -- inside the dock door. he was fined because the bread, which is wrapped and on racks, was sitting too close to the dock door. these are the types of regulation to which we are referring that crush jobs and are killing this economy. and one of the inspectors was asked, why are you doing this? and the inspector simply said and according to my constituent, arrogantly said, because i can. that's no way for an employee of the united states government to be talking to someone who helps pay his wages.

so with that, mr. speaker, this is a good piece of legislation. this is common sense and this is very simple. let's make the regulators do more with less and there is no agency or departments in the federal government that can tell me that they are running as efficiently as they possibly can. my good friend, the ranking member, said it was going to cost a great deal to have this rule, this legislation implemented and the departments and agencies follow the rule. no. you know what the departments and agencies have to do? they have to do exactly what small business operators throughout this country do do more with less and put in a

good hard day's work. and with that i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. chabot: mr. chairman i would yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chabot: thank you. i rise today in support of this bill, h.r. 527, the small business regulatory flexibility improvements act of 2015. i want to thank chairman goodlatte as well as chairman marino for the opportunity to work with them on this important piece of legislation. small businesses are critical to this country's success. they provide a means for millions of workers and their families to attain the american dream. they employ one out of every two private sector workers and create two out of every three private sector jobs. there are over 926,000 small businesses in my home state of ohio. small firms rarely have in-house legal departments or

regulatory comblines experts on staff -- compliance experts on staff. often it's the owner who must also keep up with regulations and the payment of taxes. small manufacturers retailers and construction firms want to comply with the law. however when they divert resources to costly regulatory compliance, they cannot hire workers or start new projects or make other job creation investments. if there is a way to find less expensive means to achieving regulatory objectives of our agencies, small businesses could protect the environment and workers and still create the good middle-class jobs that this country needs. there is such a law the regulatory flexibility act, or r.f.a., which requires agencies to understand the costs to small businesses and find less costly alternatives while meeting the regulatory missions

required by statute. however despite admonitions by multiple presidents, including the current one, agencies continue to ignore the r.f.a. the bill before us today, h.r. 527, the small business regulatory flexibility improvements act of 2015 addresses a goal shared by virtually all republicans and some democrats and will ensure that agencies no longer ignore the law and craft more cost-effective regulations. the bill will force agencies to analyze both direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect effects of their rules, just as they're required to do when promulgating major regulations that affect nepa. the bill provides for early input in the regulatory process so that agencies do not craft regulations that are so cost prohibitive that small businesses cannot comply and

seeks to ensure squint application of the r.f. -- consistent application of the r.f.a. through regulations written by the chief counsel for advocacy, a process first used to ensure that all agencies performed adequate environmental impact statements under nepa. even with the additional procedures nothing in h.r. 527 will prevent an agency from issuing a regulation. . h.r. 527 to paraphrase president ronald reagan simply requires that agencies know before they regulate. common sense. h.r. 527 will ensure that agencies adopt commonsense regulations that achieve their objectives while reducing unnecessary burdens on our best job creators which are small businesses. about 70% of the jobs that are created in our economy now are created by small businesses, after all. that is why the legislation has

bipartisan support and over 150 associations representing the full range of small businesses that support passage of this legislation. with that, i urge my colleagues to support this very good legislation, i believe, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. velazquez: mr. chairman, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. reducing the cost of regulations is a very important issue for small businesses and it is an issue that is always on their minds. complicated rules and duplicative requirements can create burdens for small firms across a wide range of industries. unchecked, regulations can reduce companies' profitablity, causing them to reduce employment and in the worst cases, even go out of business. it is for this very reason that president barack obama has taken

strong action. he has issued executive orders on rule making, most importantly, he instructed agencies to conduct retrospective review of their regulations. these reviews have resulted in cost savings to the u.s. economy of $10 billion. he has also required agencies to estimate the cost and benefit of regulations, consider less burdensome alternatives and incorporate those that are affected by regulations into the rule making process. taken together, these efforts are helping to rein in regulatory costs while ensuring that agencies can carry out their mission. it is against this backdrop that we are considering the bill before us today. too often on the house floor, legislation is painted as either

being totally perfect or completely awful. with this bill, neither of these characterizations is appropriate. in fact, on many fronts h.r. 527 contains several very positive provisions and will make a real difference for small businesses. many of these provisions were contained in legislation that passed out of the small business committee when i was the chair. together with current chairman, chabot, who was then the ranking member, we passed a regulatory reform bill unanimously out of our committee. for instance the bill makes agencies analysis more detailed so they cannot simply overlooked their obligations to small businesses. it also gave real teeth to periodic regulatory lookbacks, which require agencies to review

outdated regulation that is remain on the books. agencies will also be required to evaluate the entire impact of their regulations, something that is long overdue. and it cannot go without mention that the bill brings the i.r.s. under the purview of the i.s.a. this is a real improvement for small firms who will undoubtedly benefit from greater scrutiny of complex and burdensome tax rules. these are all constructed changes that will bring real relief to small businesses. with that said mr. chairman, there are other items in this legislation that leaves you scratching your head. adding so many new agencies to the process is the recipe for disaster. such a dramatic change will require new bureaucratic processes, more staff, and more

paperwork. it must be ironic for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this bill attempts to reduce federal regulations by dramatically expanding their role and scope of government. it also applies to land management plans. something i have never heard small businesses complain about in my 17 years on the committee. doing so will enable corporate interests to more readily challenge land use decisions which could have adverse consequences for the environmental stewardship of public lands. the reality is that the i.s.a. was just not intended to cover these type of actions and it should not do so going forward. another head scratcher is the creation of another standard

within the small business administration. the s.b.a. already has one and does not need two. there's simply no reason to create this bureaucratic duplication. i think both sides of the aisle will agree that during a time of physical constraint we do not need to be wasting money on a new office when it already exists in the very same agency. finally, it is important to note that the office of advocacy's footprint has traditionally been minimal. with a budget of $9 million and 46 employees. according to c.b.o. its budget will have to potentially double to handle the new responsibility of h.r. 527. c.b.o. also notes that the private sector could also face increased costs. federal agencies will likely charge the private sector higher

fees to carry out the new responsibility under this bill. simply put, now is not the time to make costly statutory leaps when smaller steps are more appropriate. it is important to remember that tinkering with our regulatory system will not turn the economy around and create jobs that we need in our communities. in order to do -- to make real in roads we need to provide businesses with the capital they need to start up and grow through affordable lending and getting more customers through their doors. the best way to achieve that is by increasing the federal minimum wage. in the end legislation such as this detracts us from the real task at hand, creating real jobs through substantive pro-growth policies. so, in conclusion, there are

some good and some not so good things in this bill. i want to acknowledge the effort by the bill's managers but in the end it is not something that i can support given the imposition of too many questionable policies. however, i want to thank chairman chabot for always being open to discussions and i look forward to continuing our dialogue on this legislation. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. knight who is a new member of the committee on small business. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. knight: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 527, to grand long overdue relief from federal regulations for small business owners. the issue is especially important to me as a representative from california. as of 2012, california had more

small businesses and employees than any other state, according to the small business association. as i understand it, this act does not stop regulation, it just asks for some common sense. when we are looking at small business, all we want is them to make money. morally and ethically. that's what we want. sew that he they can expand so they can hire, so they can produce for our country. this is a step in the right direction. analyzing direct and indirect impacts is something that we should want from our government. federally and state. many americans just want to work. the best way congress can help is cutting some of the burdensome red tape and letting job creators do what they do best and maybe letting us get out of the way. instead of making small business spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours trying to understand and comply with regulations that might not help we should let them focus on getting americans back to work. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. velazquez: i would like to inquire if the other side has more speakers. mr. chabot: we do have more speakers. ms. velazquez: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentlelady continues to reserve. the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: i yield one minute to the gentleman from nevada, mr. hardy who is also a new member of the committee on small business. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hardy: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to voice my support for this bipartisan effort to ensure that small businesses and their employees are not overburdened by regulations. as a former business owner, i know how government intrusion and overregulation can increase costs, decrease efficiency and ultimately harm hardworking individuals and their families. these taxpayers deserve a responsive government that is efficient effective, and accountable to them. as we fight for an environment more favorable to job creation,

federal agencies cannot be allowed to bypass their obligation to measure the direct and indirect economic effects regulations have on businesses. ultimately, these businesses and economic engines of our communities should have the freedom to pursue safe, responsible opportunities. unhampered by burdensome rule making and red tape. as a result communities and businesses like those represented by nevada manufacturers association, will thrive. and that is why mr. speaker, i stand alongside my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to co-sponsor this bill. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. velazquez: mr. chairman, i would like to inquire if the other side -- mr. chabot: we do. ms. velazquez: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, who is also a new member of the small business

committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. curbelo: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for being a strong advocate for our nation's emerging entrepreneurs. i look forward to serving under his leadership on the small business committee. mr. speaker, our local businesses employ our friends and neighbors. helping them pay their bills and provide a bert life for themselves and their he -- better life for themselves and their lives. when we talk about helping our local businesses, it's not just about the entrepreneurs. it's also about helping the workers that depend on them for their paychecks. it's not just about strengthening main street. it's also about keeping our neighbors strong and prosperous. we should never forget the vital role that our local businesses play in our communities. the small business regulatory flexibility improvement act upholds this commitment. current law requires an analysis to determine if a new rule could have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. unfortunately our government agencies have failed to comply with the law's spirit.

among its provisions, the underlying legislation targets loopholes agencies use to avoid regulatory flexibility act requirements. it also requires agencies to include assessments on the cumulative impacts and new rule -- a new rule may have on small businesses. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. chabot: we neal an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. curbelo: i thank the gentleman. now is the time for us to focus on creating well paying jobs for our communities. i urge my colleagues to vote for passage. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york. ms. velazquez: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. velazquez: since its enactment in 1980, the regulatory flexibility act has reduced the burden of federal rules on small businesses. it has evolved over time to include new tools, expanding its purview, and making a real difference for entrepreneurs across the country.

with this important role in mind, the legislation before us makes some essential changes such as requiring moreau bust reviews of existing regular -- more robust reviews of existing regulations and thoroughly examined. this will give small firms a greater voice while reducing the compliance cost they face in so many facets of their business. however, in other areas the bill goes too far. at a time of mounting deficit and growing taxpayer -- congress has become h.r. 527 will dramatically expand the federal bureaucracy at a cost of nearly $60 million. it also turns the office -- s.b.a.'s office of advocacy into a superregulator, giving it it unprecedented authority to issue regulations and greatly increase its role in judicial proceedings. mr. chairman, i don't want people to think that i do not

appreciate the work, the fine work that the office of advocacy does on behalf of small businesses. but what this bill does is setting them to failure. and with all these new powers, it does nothing to pay for it. instead, it leaves taxpayers with just another bill. . this is not the best and most cost-effective way to do it. in fact, there's no clear estimate of how much savings small business also receive as a result of this legislation. the truth is there are better ways to accomplish these very objectives but without the extraffic against of this legislation. mr. chairman -- extravagance of this legislation. mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from

ohio. mr. chabot: mr. chairman, too often agencies crafts one-size-fits-all regulation. it's our job to remember what affects small businesses also affects families. agencies can still achieve their regulatory onives while creating more smarter, more narrowly tailored regulations that are sensitive to small businesses. some claim that agencies are already doing what the r.f.a. requires outreach the small business and economic impacts. if that's the case, they should have no problem meeting the new requirements of this legislation. it simply ensures that agencies comply with the letter and spirit of the r.f.a. as president obama stated in a memorandum to agencies on january 18, 2011. with that i urge my colleagues to support the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. all time for general debate has

expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of an amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-3. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part a of house report 114-14. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time spesspide 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 demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in

part a of house report 114-14. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. peters: madam speaker i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 114-14 offered by mr. peters of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 78 the gentleman from california, mr. peters and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. peters: thank you very much, madam speaker. my amendment is very straightforward and has a singular goal of making sure that we are not making our active duty service members more vulnerable to predatory lending. members of our armed services make sacrifices every day to protect our country from harm and to defend our freedoms and it's our responsibility here in congress to ensure that these men and women are protected from scams and predatory

lending that seek to exploit their service. sadly, it's become clear that nature of military service makes our men and women in uniform the ideal targets for predatory loans that carry exorbitant interest rates. san diego, part of which i represent, is home to the largest concentration of military forces in the world. more than 100,000 active duty service members call the region home. predatory lending is an acute problem in my district and the region and continues to hurt too many families. despite passing the military lending act of 2007 to end this predatory lending, which leaves service members and their families are crippling amounts of debt, there are some that they have continued to exploit. these reprehensible predators are trapping service members and their families in a cycle of debt that can be extremely difficult to overcome and it's our responsibility and we're able to act. a bipartisan and bicameral

effort has been made to call on the department of defense to issue rules that close the loopholes and ensure our active duty personnel do not fall victim to predatory practices that leave them financially strapped. this amendment would keep regulations on predatory lenders so that we are maintaining a watchful eye on those companies that are exploiting those even as we streamline the regulatory processes on businesses that are playing by the rules. i want to thank chairman goodlatte of the judiciary committee and chairman chabot of the small business committee for working with me over the past few days on this amendment and their commitment to working on a bipartisan basis to protect our service members. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment. i yield back my time. i'm happy to yield now to the gentleman from ohio, the chairman of the small business committee, mr. chabot. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. chabot: madam chairman

i'll claim in time of opposition but i'll speak in favor of the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chabot: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. i want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment and this is the way bipartisanship should work. the gentleman offered, i think, a very constructive amendment. we committed that our staffs and the members would work together on the gentleman's amendment and we have -- most of us have agreed with the amendment and do support it now so we thank him for his leadership on this amendment. we strongly support our service members and veterans. our nation owes them an enormous debt and the utmost respect. in the last congress an amendment was added to this legislation to allow rules that protect the rights and benefits of veterans to bypass the r.f.a. process. that amendment is carried forward in today's legislation. the legislation however, does not yet place on the same plane rules written to protect active

duty service members from predatory lending. this amendment recognize sides of the aisle that difference so again, we commend the gentleman for offering it. in addition, the amendment makes a very small number of technical corrections to the text of the bill. in each of these ways, the amendment improves the bill. i would urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i'd now like to recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania for whatever additional time i have left. the chair: the gentleman. -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. marino: madam chairman, i want to simply say i support this legislation. i tell my children on a weekly basis, they could recite it verbatim, if it were not for our veterans, if it were not for our military personnel and our service members that are working now, my children wouldn't have what they have today. so i just -- i want to reinforce that and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. chabot: we'll yield back the balance of our time now, madam chair.

the chair: the gentlemen yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the chair understands that amendment number 2 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 114-14. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. conyers: i rise to speak in favor of my amendment. the chair: does the gentleman have an amendment at the desk? mr. conyers: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 114-14 offered by mr. conyers of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 78, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam chairman, my amendment will preserve the ability of agencies to quickly respond to emergencies that threaten america's health and safety by striking one of the most pernicious elements of this legislation. section 5 of h.r. 527 contains one of the bill's most problematic provisions. as drafted, it could undermine the ability of agencies to quickly respond to health and safety risks. so this section repeals the authority under current law that allows an agency to waive or delay the initial analysis required under the regulatory flexibility act. in response to an emergency

that makes compliance or timely compliance and practicable. rather than leave this critical exception under current law in place, section 5 replaces it with a provision empowering the chief counsel for advocacy to issue regulations about how agencies in general should comply with the act. without any provision allowing agencies to respond to emergencies through expedited rule makings. thus, if there's a looming national pandemic or environmental disaster that could be avoided or mitigated through regulation, the bill prevents agencies from responding to such emergencies without first having to go through the arduouos or time consuming task of reviewing and

analysis. for example, last year osha issued guidance to assist hospitals in preparing to provide in-patient care for ebola patients. h.r. 527, however would have significantly delayed this process. this is because the legislation broadly applies to both rules and interim guidance, requiring agencies to undertake a burdensome analysis and review process prior to issuing even interim guidance. and because h.r. 527 eliminates the emergency exception, there would have been no way for osha to quickly act in the face of a possible ebola outbreak. this amendment would simply preserve the critical emergency exception under current law so

that agencies can quickly respond to emergencies without being hampered or second guessed by others. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. marino: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. marino: one of the key failings of existing law is that it allows different agencies to interpret differently the terms of the regulatory flexibility act and small business regulatory enforcement fairness act. this allows agencies to find loopholes at their pleasure and evade the requirements of the law. the bill remedies this defect by granting the small business administration's office of chief counsel for advocacy

authority to write regulations to govern all agencies compliance with the r.f.a. and s.b.r. e.f.a. it grants chief counsel authority to intervene -- the key word there -- intervene in agency adjudications and offer comments in comment proceedings. these reforms will at last ensure consistent compliance with the r.f.a. and sbr e.f.a. the amendment would defeat the purpose and restore to the agencies their ability to find loopholes to suit their whims. america's small business creators deserve better than that. i ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. chairman.

i'll use the balance of my time. so it if there's a looping environmental disaster, a national pandemic like ebola, it could be mitigated through regulation this bill says don't worry, don't rush, let's have the office of advocacy decide. and what is this office of advocacy? well, it's an office that is woefully ill-equipped to fulfill its current responsibilities. so i urge support for the amendment. yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 4, printed in part a of house report 114-14. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. schrader: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4,

printed in part a of house report number 114-14, offered by mr. schrader of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 78, the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. schrader: i don't think i'll take five minutes. h.r. 527 does a very good job strengthening requirements that agencies review regulation that is are already on the books with stronger analysis about how these regular laces impact small businesses. ensuring that agencies are operating in an efficient manner has never been so important. this means that efforts must be made to lend programs that duplicate one another. unfortunately, section 10 of this legislation creates a duplicative program using resources twice at the s.b.a. it further grows the convoluted aspecial of the federal government's regulatory processes. to approve a size standard has been the province of the s.b.a. administrative office.

a requires expertise, an in a litical resources which the office of advocacy will now have to acquire. this will duplicate similar resources maintained at the s.b.a.'s office of size standards. it seems very redundant to create another office to do the same thing a current office already does. the chief counsel of advocacy testified in 2011 that advocacy should not take on the new responsibilities outlined in this very legislation. my amendment is simple. it would like this duplicative section and keep all the good regulatory flexibility reforms in the bill. eliminating this provision from the bill won't have any effect on the size process on small businesses. it will be business as usual. what it does do is save taxpayers from put -- footing the bill for two identical size standard offices. for these reasons i urge members to vote yes on this amendment which is to reduce waste and necessary duplication at the

s.b.a. reducing government complex it should be a bipartisan effort. i yield back -- complexity should be a bipartisan effort. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. chabot: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the clerk: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. chabot: this amendment proposes to strike section 10 from the bill which gives the small business administration's chief counsel for advocacy authority to approve small business size standards for the purposes of any act other than the small business act and the small business investment act of 1958. that includes, of course authority to approve size standards for the purposes of the r.f.a. this makes sense since the chief counsel for advocacy not the small business administrator is charged with overseeing agency compliance with the r.f.a. and chief counsel exercises that authority independently from the s.b.a. administrator. the theory of the amendment is that under section 10 a new size standards office duplicative of the s.b.a. administrator's own

size standards office will be created. but that's not the case. the s.b.a. administrator will retain the authority to set size standards under the small business act and the small business investment act of 1958. but alternative size standards for the purposes of r.f.a. compliance are a different matter. under existing law agencies must consult with the chief counsel for advocacy with regard to those alternative size standards. to authorize the chief counsel for advocacy to actually approve size standards about which it already must be conconsulted is simply to formalize existing reality. not to create dumive function or office. it is erroneous to think that the office of advocacy will have to establish a new office of size standards to do what the office of add crow cancy already -- advocacy already does. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. just in summary i would reiterate that 70% of the jobs that are created in this economy

today are created by small businesses. they are overregulated. the s.b.a., the r.f.a. rather, was basically set up to avoid the impact on small businesses by all these regulations that are being imposed upon them. in small businesses it's much more expensive than it is for them to comply than it is larger corporations who have lots of staff, they have attorneys, they have accounts, and everything else. if you're a small business owner, it can be the death of that business. not just as that business goes down the drain, but those jobs do, too. that affects families all over this country all the time. that's the purpose of this legislation. it's to improve the regulatory flexibility act, and that's why virtually all republicans and many democrats also have endorsed and support this legislation in the past and do this time. and there are something like 160

different companies and agencies around the country that are supportive and i want to name a fue. the american dental association the farm bureau, the trucking association association builders and contractors,ed credit unions, the national association of manufacturers, the realtors, the nfib, the principal organization on behalf -- that advocates on behalf of small businesses in this contry they are in favor. the national restaurant association, the retail federation the independent drivers, chamber and on and on. obviously don't have time to read them all. this is good legislation. the i urge my colleagues to support it. -- i urge colleagues to support it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it.

the amendment is not agreed to. mr. schrader: request a recorded vote, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from oregon. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in part a of house report 114-14. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: mr. speaker i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part a of house report number 114-14 offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 78, the gentleman from georgia mr. johnson, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of my amendment which would exempt h.r. -- exempt from h.r. 527 all

rules that the office of management and budget determines would result in net job creation. under president obama our country has rebounded from the great recession creating 11 million new jobs over five years as unemployment is falling at the fastest rate in three decades. consumer and business spending have catalyzed the fastest gross domestic product growth since 2003. my amendment would ensure that this meteoric growth and progress continues. contrary to my republican colleagues' assertion that regulations kill jobs a wealth of unimpeachable bipartisan evidence has repeetedly -- repeatedly and effectively debunked this claim. studies by both the san francisco and new york federal reserve found that there is zero correlation between job growth and regulations, and that there

is no evidence showing that increased regulations and taxes have any effect on the unemployment rate. and the evidence that regulations harm the economy the only evidence relied on for the absurd figures repeated by the proponents of this bill derive from a study roundly disproven by the nonpartisan congressal research service, which found that the study's cost figures were cherry picked, inaccurate based on evidence from decades ago, and without contemporary value. i have also heard from my republican colleagues repeatedly claiming that regulations have a $15,000 regulatory burden on american families, on each american family. consequently "the washington post" awarded this claim two pinocchios on january 14 arguing

that this absurd figure has serious meltthodlogical -- methodlogical problems. even the report itself admits that it is not scientific and it's back of the envelope. we fear these caveats are being forgotten as it is being preeted in capitol hill news conferences and news reports and sometimes even on this floor. mr. speaker the economy and job growth are growing at its fastest pace in years on the back of sound economic policy and sensible regulations. despite this growth, it is clear that many continue to struggle to live comfortably on their income pay their bills on time or setaside for retirement. americans work hard, harder than ever thanks to corporations

maximizing profits through a streamlined work force. meanwhile, the world's top 1% will soon control half of the world's wealth, as the compensation of corporate executives balloons ever higher. the same corporations that are continuing to show record profit margins are also pushing deregulation and fewer taxes. because they have a myopic obsession with short-term profits at the exence of long-term value -- expense of long-term value creation, according to the c.e.o. of business insider. it is also clear that despite this incredible workplace productivity, wages are stagnant. and we do need to fix that. unfortunately, deregulation does not do so. last congress americans -- excuse me last congress republicans blocked democratic legislation that would increase the federal minimum wage by less than $3, lifting countless

full-time workers out of poverty while saving the federal government trillions in annual safety net costs. fortunately for americans minimum wage increases have gone into effect in 20 states this month alone. bringing the minimum wage in 29 states above the federal minimum wage. but yet this congress refuses to take up legislation to increase the federal minimum wage. perhaps my republican colleagues will heed the calls of workers across the country for a living wage. this bill does not do that. i ask that my colleagues support my amendment which does protect jobs and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. marino: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. marino: mr. speaker, i share and welcome the gentleman's concerns about the impacts of regulations on jobs. but the right way to address that concern is to join me in support of this bill. at the heart of the bill are reforms to make sure agencies better identify the potential jobs impact of new rules. that includes not only identifying and minimizing adverse jobs impacts, but maximizing positive job benefits. it's right there in subsection 2-c on page 3 of the bill. the gentleman wants to maximize job creation, the way to do it is to make sure that provisions designed to maximizing job benefits apply to all rules, including those that they believe will result in net job creation. why stop at helping to create a net increase in jobs which could mean as little as one net job? why not make sure agencies

always work with small businesses under the bill's provisions to help create the most new jobs possible and prevent the destruction of the most jobs possible? isn't that what makes sense as the nation tries to recover from a jobs depression? further why create a carve out from the bill that gives the executive branch an incentive to manipulate its jobs impact analysis to avoid the requirements of the bill rather than comply with them. and i would also like to bring to the chair's attention this administration highly overinflates or underinflates whatever side you're looking at, the unemployment rate. they are not making into account almost the one million people that are not looking for work, and that is normally taken into consideration. and they are also taking into account as a person being

employed as this example. a person who goes and mows their neighbor's lawn for 20 bucks, because he doesn't have a job, so that's considered according to this administration, a job. . multiple reports clearly clearly prove the cost of regulation in small business and 10,000 commandments. these are reports from just last year and they give the accurate account of the unemployment rate. my good colleague on the other side of the aisle refers to a report from 2010. we should be referring to the latest reports as i hold them in my hand. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania has the only time remaining. mr. marino: i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman 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. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 114-14. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? the gentlewoman from texas, excuse me. ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. i ask -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 114-14 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 78, 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: let me thank the chairman and thank the

mover of this legislation and my ranking member, mr. johnson, my ranking member of the full committee, mr. conyers for their leadership and for bringing us together around a universal concept. we all are promoting jobs, mr. chairman. not one of us on this floor wants to in any way undermine jobs. we want people to work. we want small businesses to have the opportunity to thrive, but i'm talking about reality of protecting the american people when it comes to unique issues of health care. i'm not going to cite the name of this individual, but what i am going to do is to read from al kamen in "the loop," just a

paragraph. as a matter of fact, i think this is one where i think illustrate the point he recalled telling her. i don't have number problems with starbucks. if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says, "we don't require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom." the market will take care of this is one example. now, i have a different perspective, and so my amendment under this legislation asks to make an exception rules dealing with consumer safety, saving lives. my amendment makes an exception for rules from the food and drug administration, commonly known as the f.d.a. this bill, 527, seeks to reform the regulatory flexibility act of 1980 and 1996 which attempted to require agencies to account better for the impacts of proposed regulations on small businesses, other small entities and to tailor final regulations to minimize

adverse impacts on these entities like the food and drug administration. yes small businesses can be a single franchise of a mcdonald's or burger king or starbucks. many of them doing quite well. could be a number of them under one business owner. but in fact they do deal with the public. and so this bill continues to expand the reach and scope of the regulatory flexibility act and would only add to already unnecessary and lengthy regulatory delays, increase meddling by regulated industries and encourage gratuitous court challenges. the small business flexibility act adds a host of new analytical requirements for agency policy actions including rule makings and guidance documents that might affect a large number of small businesses, even if that is indirect. and because the bill defines indirect affects broadly it would have costly wastely

analysis that could apply to -- to make a better life to americans no matter how tenous connection to cyberspace interest. again, can we imagine not being able to regulate or interfere with some small businesses that says you do not have to wash your hands in a restaurant? shocking to me. when i wrote this amendment, i had in mind one of the new issues that we've been facing and that is the story of c.r.e., which is a disease that is being found on endoscopes, that has been found in a particular hospital in the far west. and this disease this rare bacteria was likely spread through specialized endoscopes that have been cleaned according to manufacture's directions but still had some form of deadly germs. are we suggesting that it's not an emergency to regulate or to keep -- or to be able to suggest that there needs to be a better cleaning process?

this is just the latest example of a life-threatening disease which is calling out for action from the government and the c.d.c. and the f.d.a. should not have their hands tied. in fact, "the houston chronicle" story reported last week that these problems of dirty endoscopes have been tied to superbug infections in cities like chicago and pittsburgh in recent years, although the bacteria weren't exactly the same. the situation raises new questions about the design, disinfection and regulation of the devices. mr. chairman, let me tell you that our economy is doing fine and not for every single american but it has a marked improvement, jobs are increasing, our unemployment is under 5%. i would only say that this legislation needs an addition from this amendment, and i hope my colleagues will accept the jackson lee amendment. it is a commonsense amendment that speaks to the health and care of the american public. with that i'd like to reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves her time. the gentlelady's time has expired.

ms. jackson lee: well, i ask for support of the jackson lee amendment. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. marino: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. marino: this amendment proposes to carve out an exception to the bill for food and drug administration rules related to consumer safety. and i'm all for consumer safety. as all of us support the protection of consumer safety, but it is my fervent hope that we support small business jobs and want to protect them. that, of course, was the point of the regulatory flexibility act in the first place. to continue to allow agencies like the f.d.a. to protect consumers but at the same time to start accounting for and avoiding, where possible, adverse impacts on small businesses. if agencies had faithfully done what they were supposed to do

under the regulatory flexibility act, then we wouldn't be here today. but they haven't. instead, they have routinely tried to evade that law. that has to stop. small businesses create jobs and jobs are the key to economic recovery. to help small businesses to create jobs, we need to reduce not increase, the regulatory burden on small businesses. the f.d.a. is a major regulatory agency, and it is not exempt from the r.f.a. as it currently stands. now is not the time to start walking back the r.f.a. requirements. this amendment simply is not consistent with the spirit of small business regulatory flexibility improvements act or today's small business creators. if the gentlelady's concern is to make sure that the law allows the f.d.a. to issue new emergency rules to protect consumer safety, then let me

assure her there is no need to worry. subsection 554-b-b of the a.p.a. already allows agencies to dispense with notice and comment for good cost. and since the r.f.a. only applies in notice and comment rule makings, a fact the bill does not change, nothing will hinder the f.d.a. from issuing emergency rules if the bill is enacted. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman has the only time remaining. mr. marino: i will yield one minute to the leader -- no, i will not yield. i yield one minute to the leader from california.

the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. -- mr. mccarthy: think about that for a moment, there used to be a time mr. speaker, in the white house when they said the era of big government is over. now it's like we're heading back in time. everyone knows why the era of big government should be over it's because big government has big costs. mr. speaker, large, inefficient programs cost a lot of money which means higher taxes and more debt. but there are other costs to big government too. as government grows, so does bureaucracy and more bureaucracy means more regulations. these regulations tens of thousands of pages get put on the backs of every single individual and business that

works hard and tries to get by. in fact for small businesses, regulations add almost $1,000 per employee per month. think of that. $1,000 per employee per month. that makes it much harder for our economy to grow and for small businesses to create jobs. america needs a full-scale regulatory reform so that the bureaucracy is held accountable for all these costs. now, i know that's a big goal, but representative chabot's bill is a step realizing that goal. this bill forces agencies to consider at least costly options for getting something done, just like every american has to do in a tough economy. and it makes agencies actually have to think about the impact the regulations have on small businesses. mr. speaker, president clinton said that the era of big

government is over, and it should be over. america simply cannot afford to tie down small businesses and hardworking people with more red tape. so let's take a step forward. let's move forward ending the era of big goast and vote yes on this bill and -- government and vote yes on this bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. marino: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman. choirp in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: does the gentlewoman ask for a recorded vote? ms. jackson lee: i do, mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part a of house report 114-14

on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order -- amendment number 4 by mr. schrader of oregon amendment number 6 by ms. jackson lee of texas. 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 4 printed in part a of house report 114-14 by the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 114-14 offered by mr. schrader of oregon. 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 vis ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by

the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representave any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited h u.s. hou oprentives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 184 and the nays are 234. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in

part a of house report 114-14 by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 114-14 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. 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 will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercl ess expresslpribed by e u. hse of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 172. the nays are 248. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 527, and pursuant to house resolution 78, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. newly, the previous question is -- under the rule, the previous question is ordered. a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend chapter 6 of title 5 united states code commonly 230e7b known as the regulatory flexibility act, to ensure complete analysis of potential impacts on smallp entities of rules and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the

gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed to the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. deutch of florida moves to recommit the bill h.r. 527, to the committee on judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. add at the end of the bill the following. section 14 preventing the spread -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. the house shall come to order. would members take their conversations from the floor clear the aisle before we may proceed. members are asked to cloor the well. -- clear the well.

would members clear the well. take their conversations from the floor. the clerk will proceed. the clerk: section 14, preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and amendments made by this act do not apply in the case of any rule that stops the proliferation, spread, or development of nuclear weapons, including to north korea and iran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. deutch: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker this is the final amendment to the bill. it won't kill the bill, it won't send it back to committee. if adopted the bill will proceed to final passage as amended.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will proceed. mr. deutch: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, h.r. 527, the small business regulatory flexibility improvements act, would mire the rule making process in an endless agency analytical and procedural review. this bill would require agencies to engage in speculative analysis on the indirect economic effect of a proposed rule. critical rules that protect the health and safety of our communities, protect the environment in which we live, and respond to disasters or pandemics would be stuck in this bill's imposed layers of bureaucratic review. there would be no relief under this rule for rules that are needed to address an ongoing emergency. in the event of an emergency, agencies will be required to conduct a lengthy and time consuming analysis, even of a rule that would protect citizens from harm. a note to my friends on the other side of the aisle.

putting the word small business in the title of the bill does not magically make it a bill good for small business or good for our national security. facts are stubborn things, and the fact is that this bill is dangerous to american national security. however my amendment can change this. mr. speaker, this amendment would ensure the safety and security of the american people and would ensure they not be hintered by additional bureaucratic procedures by ensuring that this act would not apply to any rule that stops the proliferation, spread, or development of nuclear weapons. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. deutch: the united states has long worked to prehaven't the proliferation of nuclear weapons worldwide. we worked to help nations achieve nuclear power without domestic capabilities to produce weapons grade ukraine yum. we enacted u.n. security council

resolutions to develop materials that could be used for the development of nuclear weapons. this includes a robust sanction regime aimed at iran. our own commerce department has developed detailed procurement regulations to prevent dual juice materials from landing in the wrong hands. the -- let me be absolutely clear about the most important national security threat facing the united states and our allies. a nuclear armed iran. all of us here, all of us here are watching the negotiations closely. and we hope for a diplomatic and negotiated end to the iranian nuclear weapons program. that is everyone's priority. however, we must prepare for the possibility that iran rejects diplomacy. if iran walks away from the talks, congress and the president have been clear that we will want to immediately and urgently impose new sanctions, we'll need new fast moving anti-proliferation actions, and

will have to put immediate pressure immediate pressure on this rejectionist regime. this bill in its current form prevents that. our national security and that of our allies depends on our agency's acting fast and efficiently in no uncertain terms the majority's bill puts our national security as risk. proliferation of nuclear weapons will not be stopped by adding new layers of bureaucracy. iran's sponsorship of terrorist groups is no secret. it openly ships missiles and rockets to hezbollah and hamas. in direct vie lavings international law. now iran and north korea are working together, sparking vital proliferation worries. the ayatollah has declared the new nation the share common enemies. we already know that iran and north korea have cooperated on ballistic missiles. i ask my colleagues to imagine a scenario where iran walks away from the talks and takes its nuclear program deeper under

ground. where iran's activities are sealed and an arms race is sparked in the region. when it comes to nubelar proliferation and the safety of united states and international security the u.s. must have a responsibility to act quickly and congress cannot and congress should not make it more difficult for our government to act to keep our people safe. mr. speaker, the safety of americans is too important to tie up in washington politics. just this week russia announced that it would no longer comply with the threat reduction cooperation program which was specifically designed to ensure security of existing nuclear stockpiles. do we really want, i ask my colleagues, to risk the safety and security of the united states and our allies around the world by hindering our ability to halt the dangerous and destabilizing spread of nuclear weapons because an agency must justify the costs or waste resources and time conducting a costly analysis of alternative ways to eliminate or streamline

new regulations? do we want to hold up regulations, i ask my colleagues, that will help to keep us safe? all this amendment does is simply protect the american people from the threat of nuclear proliferation on this we should be able to come together. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i thank you mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. marino: i rise in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. marino: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. marino: this motion to recommit presents the perfect opportunity for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to turn the page t six long years into the obama administration -- page. six long years into the obama administration our constituents field trapped in a jobs depression. this is one of the best chances we have to really start turning

things around for our constituents. the bill contains clear, commonsense reforms that will take washington's regulatory boot off the neck of small businesses in all of our districts so they can create the new jobs our constituents need. the bill contains numerous democrat-sponsored amendments, making it a truly bipartisan product. the bill already has passed the house three times in the past two congresses with bipartisan support. only to die an obstructionist death at the hands of the former senate majority leader, who by the way the voters threw out of the majority last november. we now have a chance to pass the bill again. at the very start of this congress and send it over to the senate that will actually consider it. we should all seize this opportunity, but what would this motion to recommit do? it would once again inflict on the american people the wage of

obstruction. it would block the bill from passage. it would prevent the bill from prompting reaching the senate and helping to create new jobs for our constituents. let's all make this a vote to end the obstruction. with this vote help this congress turn the page the voters send us here to turn. vote against this motion to recommit vote for this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. deutch: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: 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. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20 this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill, if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by

the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 182, the nays are 240. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from michigan.

mr. conyers: can we have a recorded vote on this? the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record the vy tnic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representave any use of the edon coveragef the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expresslprohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 260, the nays are 163. the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will receive a message. the messager: a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been

directeded by the senate to infohe house that the senate has agreed to h.con.res. 12. the rotunda of the united states capitol for a ceremony to present the congressional gold medal to jack nicklaus.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: yesterday i inadvertently missed because i was detained on congressional business both by mr. connolly. i ask unanimous consent to vote aye on that and have it placed appropriately in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman's statement will appear in the record. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy, the schedule for the week to come the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend mr. mccarthy. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker on monday, no votes are expected in the house. on tuesday, the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business, votes will be postponed until 6:30. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are

expected around noon. mr. speaker the house will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. in addition, the house will consider s. 1, the senate keystone bill. after six years of waiting, this bipartisan bill, which will create more than 40,000 jobs, will finally be placed on the president's desk. i do sincerely hope he considers his long-standing veto threat and sides with the american people by signing this important jobs bill. mr. speaker, the house will also consider two critical tax packages next week that will provide much needed certainty for americans and small businesses. h.r. 644 the fighting hunger act sponsored by representative tom reid, will make tarettable giving provisions term. this will also include provisions authored by representative schock and kelly.

this will make a real difference in lives of americans by encouraging donne nations of property for conservation and enhancing deductions for food contributions to those in need. finally, mr. speaker the house will consider h.r. 636 america's small business tax relief act sponsored by representative pat tiberi, with additional provisions authored by representative dave reichert. this bill is essential to creating stability for our nation's best job creators, small businesses by making increased expensing permanent. i thank the gentleman. i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for the information he's given us. i have some questions on that information, but before getting to the bills that we are going to consider next week, i note the absence of the homeland security bill. that continues to, unfortunately, be mired in controversy, mr. speaker. a bill that i would remind our

members, mr. speaker, and i know the majority leader knows this has been agreed to, essentially. there really is no catastrophe with respect to the funding of the -- controversy with respect to the funding of the homeland security department. there are no amendments being offered to change the numbers or anything of that nature. there is, however, the holding hostage, mr. speaker of this bill for the purposes of overturning the president's actions, which, in our view, he was forced to take because of the inaction of this body after over a year of even considering a comprehensive immigration reform bill that the senate passed by over 60 votes. almost 2/3 of the senate, republicans and democrats voting for that bill.

mr. speaker i am very concerned, the american people are concerned, that a bill which is so critically important for the defense of our borders, for the security of our country, and the security of our people, is languishing notwithstanding the fact that we have agreement on the underlying bill. there is no disagreement, in my view and the homeland security bill, mr. speaker, in my opinion would pass with over 400 votes. if it were brought to this floor, but for the fact it is being held hostage for -- to force the president to do something that the senate clearly has indicated they are not going to approve. so, mr. speaker, i would ask the majority leader and urge him to bring to the floor a clean and by clean i mean, the republican reported bill not our bill, but a compromise bill, a republican reported bill in december

conferenced -- conference may overstate it because it was the four leaders, republicans and democrats meeting and they brought out of that meeting to this floor a homeland security bill that could pass overwhelmingly. every day that we delay puts us closer to the february 27 deadline that was set in december. for the funding of this bill. taken out of the omnibus appropriations bill that we passed put on a short-term leash. putting our homeland security at risk. mr. speaker, mr. majority leader, i would ask you is there any plan at some point in time to say we are not going to snatch defeat from the jaws of compromise? i tell the leader, and the

leader knows the leader's very astute, understands this body very well, and knows full well that the underlying bill has consensus. if there's anything that is frustrating the american people it is that when we have something that we agree upon that we turn it into something that we can't agree on. i would yield to my friend, mr. speaker, for the purposes of telling me what his view is as to how, when we are going to be able to pass a appropriation bill to ensure that the homeland security department can operate in an effective, efficient manner, to protect america and americans. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i share the gentleman's frustration. knowing the timeline of dealing with funding of homeland

republicans want to make sure it's funded. that's why we took up legislation. but i agree with the gentleman why is it being held hostage by the democrats in the senate? as my good friend knows, the senate has changed hands and watching what's happening on keystone, you get open debate. i know you didn't have amendments for the last number of years, but now you have the opportunity. so if people disagree with the house bill, all they have to do is take the bill up. as my good friend knows, what's happening in the senate, day after day, the senate democrats are voting not to allow the bill to come up. so if you disagree with the bill you can't offer amendments, you can't change the bill. i would say to my friend, i share your frustration. but i think our direction should be at the senate democrats and get them to allow the bill to come up because nobody wants homeland not to be funded. that's why we took the bill up very early so the senate could have time. it's unfortunate they play these

actions at a time and place, as you said, the american people want to see this done. we want to see it done in a bipartisan manner as well. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i appreciate the gentleman's comments, mr. speaker but frankly the american people ought not to be confused. there is a bipartisan agreement. we did not send, however, the bipartisan agreed bill to the senate. we did as we so often do add to agreement something that does not have agreement. that undermines the ability of this congress to work on behalf of the american people in an effective way. and very frankly, mr. speaker, the majority leader knows that. he knows it because i have had discussions with him. he knows it because publicly the president has said, democrats have said, we don't agree with the provision you're adding. to something that has been

agreed upon in a bipartisan fashion. by the senate, and by the house. and the majority leader knows full well that if we sent a clean bill that has already been agreed upon, by the appropriations committee in the house, by the appropriations committee in the senate, by republicans and democrats on the appropriations committee in the house, and by republicans and democrats on the appropriations committee in the united states senate, already agreed to. let me, mr. speaker, read you some comments. by someone who i had a great opportunity to serve with in this congress. secretary tom ridge, the first secretary, republican secretary of the department of homeland security. and michael chertoff, who was also a republican secretary of the department of homeland security. joined with secretary, now president, napolitano t.

president of one of the great educational institutions in our contry, was secretary, former governor of arizona. all three of them said this, and i quote, funding for the entire agency should not be put in jeopardy by debate about immigration. it is imperative, they went on to say -- again, i remind you this is secretary ridge former republican governor of the state of -- commonwealth of pennsylvania former republican secretary department of homeland security, and michael chertoff former secretary republican secretary of homeland security department as well as secretary napolitano said, it is imperative that we ensure that the department of homeland security is ready, willing, and able to protect the american people. to that end we urge you not to risk funding for the operations that protect every american and

pass a clean department of homeland security funding bill. i agree with secretary ridge. i agree with secretary chertoff. so when my friend says, oh it's the senate, i disagree with my friend. it is the senate who has not passed a bill, of course complaining about the 60-vote requirement after having required the most number of cloture votes in history in the last congress by the leader, the current majority leader of the united states senator when he was minority leader is a little difficult to understand. i choose my words carefully on

that. the fact of the matter is, we are putting at risk the security of the american people. we have seen in canada, we have seen in france, and we have seen in the middle east horrific terrorist acts. this department was created to prevent such acts. and by god's grace and their work, america has been very fortunate since september 11, 2001. the secretaries are saying don't put that at risk. so, mr. speaker, i would urge once again not only the majority leader but the majority party in this house to accept the fact that we do not have agreement on immigration. i accept the fact that they believe the president has acted

incorrectly. what i do not accept, mr. speaker, is that they are holding hostage the budget for the department of homeland security in order to make their point on immigration. . i would hope that the ma jordan leader would urge his side -- that the majority leader would urge his side of the aisle not to do that. i close on this particular issue, with this quote. when asked what was going to happen when time ran out on february 27 on this funding of the department of homeland security, john mccain, former presidential candidate on the republican side of the aisle, former republican member of this body, and now the republican chairman of the armed services committee in the united states senate, said this when asked whether -- what was going to happen on february 27,

he said, your guess is as good as mine. what do you think our adversaries think when on the department of homeland security the chairman of the armed services committee says on the homeland security department, your guess is as good as mine, and he goes on and says this, i believe in one fundamental principle. that is, we cannot shut down the department of homeland security. unfortunately the republican whip, my friend observed that, well, we may be just -- maybe just can do that. now the theory is mr. speaker, that because it's funded out of fees and because they are critically important employees, that we won't shut down the department in one sense, but in another sense we will preclude it from being empowered by the bipartisan bill passed out of the house appropriations committee and the senate appropriations committee in which we considered in december

to per for its duties and i will -- perform its duties and i will yield to my friend if he wants to make an additional comment. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding because i listened a long time. i appreciate it. but you also very well know the votes in the senate that just took place for the last two days was to bring the bill up. that quote you gave from john mccain, he's trust raided because he's -- he's frustrated because he'd like to get on the bill. there are two different chambers. if it is as you say a strong bipartisan vote over there, the only people holding this up to bring this bill to the floor are the senate democrats. it is unfair to claim anything other. they have denied for two days straight, if they want to make an amendment, if they want to change the bill, but they deny the american people to even bring the bill up.

so let's be honest with the american people of where we are. because nobody on this side of the aisle wants homeland security in any trouble. we passed the bill early, we sent it to the senate early, for two days in a row the majority has asked to allow the bill to come to the floor and for two days straight the democrats have said no. not even to debate it. that to me is unacceptable. if you have a difference of opinion you debate the opinion. but to deny the american public to have that debate, that is unacceptable and i will not stand for it. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i'm glad to hear the majority leader will not stand for it. over a year ago the united states senate passed overwhelmingly a comprehensive immigration reform bill. the reason they are holding hostage, mr. speaker, the department of homeland security is because they don't agree. but the majority leader has

just said, bring it to the floor let us vote. let us offer amendments. we have asked that the senate bill on immigration reform which the house republicans apparently don't agree with, but which the overwhelming majority of americans are polling and saying yes they agree with. so the majority leader complains about a bill not being brought to the floor. the minimum wage bill is a very very important bill that the overwhelming majority of americans support, in five states on which it was on the ballot it was passed. in some red states and yes, some blue states. mostly red states by the way. and there is a refusal to bring it to the floor. so, mr. speaker, when i hear the majority leader complain about not letting that bill come to the floor, the majority

leader knows and everybody in this body knows that if that bill should squeak by the senate it would be vetoed by the president and i guarantee the majority leader -- i guarantee, the majority leader, that veto would be sustained here. the reason the secretary said, bring a clean bill to the floor , is because they know that what i say is absolutely correct. so, mr. speaker, i tell the majority leader who is my friend and whom i have great respect for, that complaining about not bringing bills to the floor, we only need to look in the mirror. because if the issue is comprehensive immigration reform and you don't like what the president's doing, bring a bill to the floor. show us what you want to do. let us vote on it.

send it to the senate. see what they do. and then if they pass it, send it to the president. but don't hold hostage the department of homeland security. don't put americans at risk. don't turn a bipartisan consensus agreement into partisan gridlock which the americans hate and which puts them at risk. i'll go on to other matters unless the majority leader would like me to yield to him one more time. mr. mccarthy: i would ask that -- i hope i hope -- mr. hoyer: i yield to the gentleman. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman. we're talking about looking into the mirror. 22 times the president said he did not have the power to take the action that he did. from the time he said that to the time he took that action what changed? the constitution did not. i'll remind the gentleman,

because he was at the lunch that i was with the president i remind the president, prior to -- after the election but prior to being sworn in, we had this discussion with him. the senate and house leaders. the president had the opportunity, when you were majority leader, he was president and the democrats controlled the senate, to deal with immigration. they did not. we asked the president, would you even give us one day in the majority to deal with it? he did not. so, when we look into the mirror, i'll gladly look into the mirror. because i think the idea should win at the end of the day. but if the senate democrats will not even allow you to bring the bill up to debate, i think it's very hard for your argument to stand ground. this is the time that we want to make sure homeland security is funded we took the bill up early, just as the constitution says, the house has their position, the senate can have theirs. it doesn't say, whatever the

senate says they can and cannot do, we should just follow. no, we should lead and we have. and i look forward to solving this problem before the 27th and i yield back to my good friend. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. is the gentleman prepared to bring comprehensive immigration bill to the floor? i yield tmyd. mr. mccahyi anthe gentleman for yielding. and if you looked at our committees, are working on it. just as we say this body ould. it should go through committee, have debate on both sides and be open. i believe this immigration system is broken. and i think that's the process we should take, not the action that the president took. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. but i would observe that we have spent the first four weeks considering an awful lot of legislation that didn't go to committee at all. no hearings, came right to the floor through the rules committee and mr. speaker, i am con founded -- confounded by

the representative, the majority party complaining about what the senate democrats have done and saying, we're not for this bill, when more than any other time in history his party did that in the last congress. mr. speaker there are other pieces of legislation i'm concerned about. let me ask the leader, if i can, with respect to the apparently seven bills which the house -- the ways and means committee has considered. are those bills going to be considered, mr. leader, one by one, or is the expectation as apparently i think i'm reading in the comments you made going to be packaged and if so, does the gentleman know how many

bills are going to be in which package and how many packages there are going to be? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as the gentleman brought up about how we bring the bills to the floor the gentleman remembers that there was a bipartisan agreement towards the end of last year. with the senate and with the house. it gave greater certainty. and it was going to be into one package. unfortunately the white house disagreed. so we did not get that work done. in essence, it got stopped. it was too big. our intention next week is to bring them up individually. have the opportunity for the debate listening to the white house where they want a bill too big too small, i'm just trying to get the american public moving forward. so i took that advice and did it individually. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that comment.

and information. does that mean there are six or seven bills, does that mean we'll consider each one of those individually? mr. mccarthy:. no they will be in the two packages. -- mr. mccarthy: no. they will be in the two packages. mr. hoyer: the two packages. i know it's usually the practice in both bodies, or both parties, not to have them open to amendment. is that your expectation? that neither of the packages will be open to an amendment? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for asking. you asked a question similar to this last week. it was always my intention to yield to the rules committee their jurs diction to decide on -- jurisdiction to decide on the format of the bill coming to the floor and -- and the amendments, whether it's an open rule or structured rule. that's their job. as soon as they make that decision i'll notify all. mr. hoyer: same question, same

answer. mr. mccarthy: consistency. mr. hoyer: when i get an answer i'll stop asking. how about that? mr. speaker. in terms of the deficit. i know your side is very concerned about the deficit. my side is very concerned about the deficit. and i certainly am very concerned about the deficit, as the gentleman knows. i've worked in a lot of ways to try to bring this down. one of my propositions is that we need to pay for things whether we spend money or reduce revenues, we need to offset that. does the gentleman know whether there's any intention to offset that so we do not exacerbate and make the deficit worse? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i know your concern with the deficit. i'm very concerned, especially with this administration adding more debt than all the other presidents combined. that's why we're trying to spur the economy. i firmly believe that if government takes less, more in the hands of the public, they're able to spend, more

revenue will come in and history has shown that. i firmly believe that our actions take place, will actually bring greater revenue, greater job creation and help lower the deficit. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i can't help but observe however that this president inherited the deepest recession that you and i have experienced in our lifetime. and as a result we had to respond to that. we responded to it vigorously. unfortunately it made the debt worse. but what it also did was grow our economy better and faster than any other economy on earth. we now have an economy that's growing creating jobs. 58 months solid. we've increased however, the debt by about 70%. too much. i'll tell my friend, he may not know this, that's a percent of the g.d.p. that ronald reagan, who could have vetoed every spending bill, the debt

increased by 189%. almost three times as much. now, in real dollar figures, that's like saying $7.25 is much higher than the minimum wage, when actually it's reduced 36% of its purchasing power. as a percentage of our wealth as a country, this president has increased the debt having to respond to the deepest recession since the depression, almost about 1/3 of what ronald reagan saw in his presidency, the increase of our debt as a percentage of the g.d.p. we ought to come together, i tell my friend, mr. speaker, we ought to come together, work together to make sure that this country is on and remains on a fiscally sustainable path. i look forward to working with him toward that end.

but if we pass tax bills, as we did in 1981 and 2001 and 2003 and pretend they're going to pay for themselves, it doesn't happen. we know it doesn't happen. we look at it, it doesn't happen. frankly, many of us on this side are for a number of the bills that are going to be in these packages. some of us will be constrained to vote no because we don't want to make the deficit worse. . if the gentleman wants to make a comment i'll yield and if not i yield back the balance of my time. mr. mccarthy: well, i -- mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: this is the slowest recovery. when you look at ronald reagan's time and how fast we come out of it, there's no comparison. participation rate 62.7%, the lowest it's been since 1978. mr. hoyer: if the gentleman will yield? mr. mccarthy: once i finish.

mr. hoyer: ok. mr. mccarthy: when you give up to participate you give up on your future, you give up on your dreams. that's not an economy that we want. when you look at the tax package that we're bringing forward charitable contributions. maybe people on your side of the aisle think government should solve that problem. i see charitable contributions back home in my own community solving a lot of problems locally very fast and very direct. and i think these are things that could be bipartisan. so i look forward. and as you talk about the deficit yes, i want to work with you. i looked at the president's budget. i do not believe government needs 11% increase. that's how much new in taxes he'd give to the federal government. i think people keeping that would be better and i think lowering how we spend our money here in washington would go a long way, and i welcome the opportunity to work with you on that. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. just so the american people mr. speaker, are clear on the record ronald reagan, which

the gentleman spoke didn't get to 5.6% unemployment until his eighth year as president of the united states. and he did not confront nearly as deep a recession as this president inherited from his predecessor which four million people lost their jobs in 2008 and 878,000 people lost their jobs january -- when he took office in 2009. so it's been a tough time, but the good news is, not the bad news, is that we have increased our economy faster, better and more sustainable than any other country on earth. that's good news. we ought to tell the american people that's good news. again, i'm prepared to yield back the balance of my time

unless the gentleman wants to make an additional comment. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 1:00 p.m. on monday next. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. 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: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor daniel reed simpson. unfortunately on january 24 of this year he lost a courageous

battle with lou body demint & went on to meet his maker. mr. meadows: senator simpson as many of us knew him, was a father and a husband to mary alice of some 63 years, and he served the state of north carolina in the state senate for six terms, but it was not just his service to our great state that made this man truly a remarkable example of a community servant. some of his greatish -- greatest accomplishment as he would tell it introducing a bill and shepherding it through the state legislature to set up western piedmont community college. additionally, he helped set up the glenn alpine recreation foundation. and in 2007, they honored him

for that work by naming the field the simpson field for not only the recognition of his great work for that community with kids who wanted to play baseball and football but also a life-long commitment to the folks of burke county. senator simpson served also in the military. he fought with mckart you are's forces in the -- mcmcarthur's forces in the philippines and japan. so not only was it was a service to our nation but also to burke county and to his family. so it is with sadness but certainly a great honor that i remember his life and our prayers are with his wife and his three children and all of his family that survive. so i thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, i rise today to talk about the millions of high-quality jobs this nation has outsourced over the last quarter century because of flawed free trade deals. these job-killing deals like nafta have been incredibly harmful to the american economy, racking up a massive, massive trade deficit of $9.5 trillion, and they failed to live up to the promise of creating jobs. instead, they wiped out good jobs, high-paying jobs across our country. take motorola solutions for example, which shut down plants all over our country from california to florida. motorola shut down those operations and moved production

to china, to south america, to eastern europe. take walgreens which has outsourced its information technology to mexico to india leaving its illinois employees jobless. meanwhile, six years after the recession, ohio and 14 other states have job markets that have not yet recovered from the number of jobs lost during the recession. hundreds, thousands, millions of good-quality, good-paying manufacturing jobs have not returned. citizens of these states, like ohio, are fighting for honest employment. since 1976 america has literally outsourced 47,500,000 good jobs. we have a budget deficit because we have a $9.5 trillion trade deficit. we must support job seekers, more loop sided trade deals are not the answer. we simply have to reform our trade policies. i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life of a great man and a great soldier. mr. davis: in 2013, i had the honor of meeting fred pistoly and presenting him with the soldier's medal, the highest medal you can receive in a noncombat operation. he proudly served his country in world war ii and in 1944 he saved a fellow soldier from drowning. pistoly's commanding -- stolly's commanding officer wrote a commendation letter. he was deeply trouble of -- troubled by losing his fellow soldier. he went home to decatur, illinois. he built houses to graduate

from my alma mater with a degree in business. out of respect for the soldier he saved, stolly never requested a medal to recognize his act of heroism but 70 years later my office was able to present him with the medal in front of his family and friends. this week we lost a hero, fred stolly passed away at the age of 90. it's because of people like him and all our men and women in uniform that we are able to enjoy the freedoms that we have today. my thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends as they lay him to rest in decatur this afternoon. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. richmond: mr. speaker today i rise in the spirit of black history month to honor

leah chase, also known as the queen of creole cuisine. a renowned chef, civil rights icon in new orleans. as executive chef at her historic restaurant she has served luminaries such as duke ellington thurgood marshall, president jomplet w. bush and barack obama, among countless others. in 1946 she married edgar chase whose family owned a small street corner stand. at a time when new orleans was starkly divided by segregation, the restaurant was one of a few places where mixed races could gather. it became a central hub for leaders of the civil rights movement. due to the immense pop laret of dookie chase's, there would have been a public uproar had police intervened.

she hosted voter rights campaigns, naacp gatherings, countless other meetings and fed them well. people across the world are welcomed by her hospitality and of course cooking. she's received countless awards and has been immortalized in song by ray charles and inspired disney's first african-american princess, but she remains rooted in her ministry and committed to service. so today mr. speaker, i rise to honor some of the people who have paved the way for my generation and some of the people whose shoulders i stand on. so today we congratulate and commemorate leah chase. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker small businesses, the backbone of our economy continue to be unfairly saddled

by one-size-fits-all federal regulations. most small businesses do not have the capacity to retain in-house legal or compliance departments and unfortunately many agencies often neglect their duties of assessing how new regulations mayim pact small businesses. there is also a pattern of federal agencies providing inadequate analysis for the long-term rules. despite the president's promise in january, 2011, to -- very little has been done by this administration. yesterday, the house passed h.r. 50, the unfunded mandates information and transparency act of 2015. which would require greater transparency the federal government costs associated with unfunded mandates. i join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to approve a commonsense solution to reducing costs by improving transparency, awareness and accountability in our federal agencies. just moments ago, the house

passed h.r. 527, which would require better economic analysis of direct and indirect costs on small businesses. i thank my colleagues in both parties for supporting these commonsense reforms. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the virgin islands seek recognition? mrs. christensen: thank you, -- ms. plass can he tell: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. plass can he tell: earlier this week, my colleagues -- ms. plaskett: earlier this week, my colleagues talked about the civil rights andry call on my colleagues in congress that there are still american citizens today that do not have equal voting rights act. some four million citizens to be exact. these are citizens and

residents of america's island territories. the u.s. virgin islands, puerto rico guam and northern mariana islands. these overseas u.s. territories have been part of the united states for over 115 years. that's more than half of the time -- as long as there has been a u.s. constitution. our service has gone above and beyond giving this great nation even its very banking system through fellow virgin islander alexander hamilton. and it has the highest military service in the united states. with some 7% higher than other areas, the national average, in casualties in afghanistan and iraq. i implore this congress to urge them to pass the voting rights act and also to extend those rights to its u.s. citizens abroad. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois 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:

without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i rise to recognize the leadership and accomplishments of david northern sr. he's the resident of gray's lake and a good friend. on january 25, mr. northern was presented with the most influential african-american lake county award for 2015. i've known david for several years in his role as a community leader and as the executive director and chief executive officer of the lake county housing authority. under david's leadership, the housing authority has become a more effective, people-centered and collaborative agency. he and his team have found a balance, allowing them to successfully serve those in need of housing while also being mindful to the fiscal effects on the county as a whole. . david is a kind and genuine person who feels a personal responsibility to his community. for david northern building a strong community is not just his job, but his passion.

i want to congratulate david on his well deserved award and say that it is an honor to call him my friend and to recognize his contributions to the people of lake county. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. clinls of georgia for today -- mr. collins of georgia for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher backer, is recognized for -- mr. rohrabacher, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much mr. speaker. today i rise to have a discussion with my fellow colleagues and with those people throughout the united states who are watching this and reading this in the congressional record. the issue i wishes to discuss

is a matter of grave concern to me and i think i believe, to the american people as well. i came here 26 years ago. i had served seven years prior to my arrival here in the united states congress, i served for seven years in the reagan white house. i was a speech writer to president reagan and i was a special assistant to the president, which is a designated rank at the white house. i recall what it was like in the time leading up to ronald reagan's election and i recall specifically how ronald reagan dealt with the great challenges he faced. before ronald reagan came to the white house, america was in retreat, there was a sense of pessimism throughout our country, our economy was

topsy-turvy. high levels of inflation, high levels of unemployment. and our country was in jeopardy. our country felt a danger because, while we were in retreat communism, soviet communism, was on the offensive throughout the world. well, ronald reagan in eight short years turned that situation totally around. turned an economy around, turned around a spirit of the people. we went from pessimistic to being the most optimistic and forward-looking people in the world. but first and foremost ronald reagan, he did, yes help the economy, but he ended the cold war. during my life, i'm 67 years old during my life most of us felt that someday we would be at war with the soviet union. a shooting war. that it might take the lives of millions of people. we were told to hide under our

desks when we were young and cover up our heads in case there was a nuclear attack on our country. ronald reagan expanded the united states military. and many times people, when they look back and they understand the success that we had in ending the cold war, they believe that it was due to the increase in the size of our military. let me note, that did play a factor. because it was a deterrent factor and it was a factor that many people in the developing world, as well as our enemies in the communist world -- awed many people in the developing world, as well as our enemies in the communist world. but that's not what changed our defeat in the cold war to a great victory and the bringing down of the berlin wall. what changed it was a change in strategy that ronald reagan initiated during the time that he was president. he was a strong leader. and when he came into the white house and people asked, what is your strategy for dealing with

this soviet threat to our freedom and the peace of the world, he said the strategy is very simple, we win and they lules. and that's what he set out and that's -- lose. and that's what he set out and those were the guidelines that he set out for us who worked for him in the white house and throughout the administration. now our goal was to be that the united states would win the cold war and the soviet union would lose. during that time period ronald reagan did not deploy american troops overseas like people think that he did. yes, he expanded our military power. but he made very few deployments, major deployments of american troops. and in fact in one deployment, which he made to beirut, where he sent thousands of marines to beirut i personally was arguing against it in the white house and went around finding out what it was all about.

and after a few short weeks, it turned into a fiasco, it turned into a situation, a tragedy as well as a fiasco, i might add. 300 americans marines and sailors, lost their lives when their headquarters was blown up their headquarters, their bunker, you might say, their barracks, in beirut was blown up. ronald reagan's advisors at that time advised him to second in tens of thousands of more american troopers. send in the entire second marine division and show these terrorists they can't kill marines and get away with it. ronald reagan made his best decision as president at that time. not to make such a huge major deployment of troops into beirut. otherwise we would have been in a quagmire for the rest of his administration.

he would have been -- we would have been there, stuck in this war zone in beirut a no-win situation. reagan knew that. but he knew also when he pulled -- when he told -- he says, no, we're going to get out of there as soon as we can, rather than get stuck in the quagmire, he initiated another policy, a security policy based on a different doctrine than sending american troops to garrison in the world or senledsing american troops to fight other people -- sending american troops to fight other people's battles. what it was is ronald reagan initiated the reagan doctrine. the reagan doctrine was basically to recognize that the enemy of our enemy was our friend. and to do everything we could to identify our friends around the world who would help us defeat the soviet union. the reagan doctrine had us helping people in nicaragua who were fighting against the dictatorship which was allied with the soviet union.

it was in africa, where you had cuban troops being confronted by u.s. is movements that we -- insurgency movements that we supported. and in afghanistan, where the soviet army itself was being confronted. ronald reagan, as part of a doctrine to support those who were struggling for freedom against oppression, we helped people in europe elect the various leaders throughout eastern europe who organized resistance against the soviet domination of their countries, whether it be poland or cejka -- alex cejka or hungary. -- czechoslovakia or hungary. reagan wanted to defeat the soviet union and that's what we did. we did it in a way by helping those who were on the front lines struggling against what we saw as an evil.

that is, a government in russia that was controlled by an atheistic theory that atheist dictatorship imposed upon people would -- could re-establish new values among human beings and thus create a whole new world. that monstrous philosophy monstrous because it had monstrous implications in terms of human freedom, but also in the control and slaughter of those people who did not agree with that vision that had to be defeated because it threatened the entire world. and by the time ronald reagan was finished with his presidency, and the leadership that he provided to the free world and all those who were struggling against communism, we succeeded. the berlin wall came down. this was done because of great leadership and a great strategy on the part of this man. today we look at a totally

different world than the world that reagan left us. reagan left us a world, unlike the world that he inherited from his predecessor, president carter, he left us a world where the upward trend towards our civilization was undeniable. it looked like we could have generations of peace. and that our enemies respected us to the point that they would not put us -- put us in jeopardy because it would be putting themselves in jeopardy. reagan gave us chances for peace and prosperity and freedom throughout the world. today we face a totally different world. it's a frightening world. and we have, today an adversary that is every bit as evil and potentially harmful and destructive to the people of the world as what we faced when ronald reagan came to the

presidency at the hithe of the cold war -- height of the cold war. yes everything was dangerous at that time and reagan gave us peace and security. today we are facing evil and danger as even before when the cold war, but perhaps we could compare this even to the evil and danger that america and the western world faced in the early 1930's in the late 1920's when naziism and fascism raised its ugly head. and what happened? during that time period, had we been able to deal, and the western allies dealt with adolf hitler perhaps there would not have been this huge world war ii which took the lives of hundreds of millions of people. but they did not deal with that. as ronald reagan dealt with communism when he became president and hitler and the fascist threat, eventually with their aggression, put the free

world and those other people who sought a better world in such a spot that war was erupted and world war ii, that great con florida ration, happened -- con flag ration happened. it was avoidable. today we faced a similar threat. we face an evil that is every bit as dangerous as what was faced by reagan. and faced before world war ii. it's a radical islamic philosophy that will slaughter people in the west without thinking twice about it. or what's even worse, is slaughter people in great numbers in the west after strategizing of how to do it more effectively. not only slaughtering christians and other non-muslims, but this evil force is seeking to dominate that part of the world in which the majority of people are of the islamic faith.

this evil radical islamic terrorist evil murders more muslims than indeed -- than they murder christians. although they have been very aggressive in their murder of christians and in a very demonstrable way, in a way that would intimidate, try to intimidate the christian world and the non-muslim world. but we have brave and courageous people within the muslim world. we must not let ourselves be brought to the point that the radical islamic movement wants us to be in. and that is to alienate the rest of the billion muslims who occupy this planet and make them our enemy. like ronald reagan, we must seek out our friends throughout the world who are struggling against radical islamic terrorism and dictatorship and make sure that we back them up so they will have a chance to

defeat this threat and this ongoing murder and chaos that's engolfing their own countries. today we have such heroes overseas. but let us note in the last six years this threat has grown, has gown gone from miniscule to being a threat that could, if we do not deal with it, could erupt into the same type of global conflagration that we saw in world war ii and perhaps , or at best would leave us with a war with a global split in the world like happened under communism, that we defeated under ronald reagan. yes we could see if this threat of radical islam is not confronted with american leadership, 10 years down the road there could be a massive

con flag ration that would -- conflagration that would encompass for example, what would happen if we do lose total control and things go out of -- totally out of control in the gulf areas, in the persian gulf and the arab world, if that part of the world becomes the dominant force in that part of the world, becomes this radical islamic philosophy, it will, it will then move to the stands it will then move to the great parts of africa and of central asia that will tip the balance of power in this planet and will lead to the type of global con flag ration that all of -- conflagration that all of us want to avoid and to prevent, but we must have the type of decisive leadership and the type of actual commitment to winning this battle against the radical

islamic dictatorship that these people are tryinging to superimpose upon the world, we need the strong commitment that we saw under ronald reagan. we need that and we do not have it. . or the type of chaos that is now erupting in the arab world would not be happening. what's happening in this chaos that we see this rise of isil, a group of people that are so committed to establishing a muslim dictatorship throughout their -- throughout their part of the world and throughout africa and, yes, even throughout the rest of the world where the -- where other non-muslim communities live, these people are dedicated to tare rising the world into -- terrorizing the world into

submission to their authority and they see their authority as coming from their radical version of god through their radical version of islam. again, most muslims deny and reject that type of islam. but let us not forget, let us not ignore the fact that this radical philosophy is based on their interpretation of islam. that it is a religious fanaticism that could be, just like communism was a religious fanaticism it was an atheist fanaticism and we've seen christian fanaticism in the past and it caused a great number of lives in their days. this radical islamic fanaticism will maybe -- unless we defeat it now, will perhaps drag the entire planet into a world war

ii-like conflagration. so how do we stop that? how was ronald reagan able to stop the rise the communism the soviet expansionism that he faced when he took office and in seven or eight short years managed to turn that around and defeat that very enemy? well, first, he had the commitment to defeat it. and i will say that today, i do not believe that our president has the commitment to defeat and destroy radical islamic terrorism and the radical islamic dictatorship that these fanatics would superimpose on us. instead, i think our president believes in all good faith that he can reach an accommodation with these folks, with these fanatics that an accommodation can be reached and we should try to show them -- prove to

them that we are not their enemy. well, they know they are our enemy because they get their word from god, not from the president of the united states. that's what they believe. and they see these overtures to fanatic radicals like in the taliban. they see that as weakness, and it only encourages the radical islamic movement for our president to try to reach accommodation or to say pleasant things to them without being aggressive without being -- seeming to be unwilling to actually draw a line in the sand. our president, as most people know, has trouble even uttering the words islamic terrorism in one sentence. we are not going to be successful in defeating this threat that would murder us by the millions of people if they get the chance if our president is not even willing

to utter the words "islamic terrorism" in the same sentence. we have a president that after our ambassador was murdered in benghazi tried to foist off on the american people the false story that our ambassador was killed because a demonstration against a movie that insulted islam got out of control and the demonstrators killed our ambassador. for weeks this president himself participated in spreading that lie. now, what message does it give us? my gosh, our president isn't going to tell us the truth about razzcal islam. but what did the muslim -- radical islam. but what did the muslim terrorists think? they were thinking my goodness, we have a guy who's so weak that he can't even condemn us and condemn the killing of his own ambassador

by our movement. this emboldened them and that's why -- and we also heard early on, of course, support for various quote, reform movements. we hope that arab spring would be a reform movement but instead our president unlike ronald reagan who sought out to help those people that were the most aggressive opponents of soviet communism, this president has tried to seek out those people in the muslim brotherhood and elsewhere and reach an accommodation with them. that is why today we see enormous chaos and the rise of a radical fanatic islamic movement, isil, that will burn people alive, that will recruit people throughout the west to murder people in a newspaper,

like we saw in paris, for drawing a cartoon that they -- that in some way made fun of their beliefs. as if people can't make fun, people aren't free to make fun of other people's beliefs. no. they think it's all right to murder those people and that's -- that is more -- is less civil. that's not even a sin. that's a mandate as compared to murdering unarmed people. an unarmed cartoonist newspaper cartoonist in france and his colleagues. a policeman who happened to be a muslim laying there helpless on the ground and they murdered him outright. this is fanaticism. this is part of a movement of fanatic islamic movement that has to be stopped because they will not stop at killing one policeman who happens to be a muslim on the ground, they will murder millions of americans and millions of others if they get their chance. and they are trying to

establish themselves throughout the arab world right now. we need to make sure we stand by our friends. yet unlike ronald reagan, who made -- there was no doubt that he was standing behind our friends who opposed soviet communism, but how are we -- what are we projecting to those people who are standing firm against this fanatic, radical islamic movement that would put a dictator -- islamic dictatorship on the people? what are we telling? what are we telling people who stranding up against that? well, how about general sisi now president al-sisi of egypt? ial-sisi was a general who stepped in at a time when egypt could have gone either way. we had a radical islamic movement going there. yes it was an elected president and he broke his words to his own people of

trying to institute a caliphate in egypt. they rose up against him in one of the -- an aggressive shout from the people of egypt saying we will not let our country become an islamic caliphate. this is egypt. we believe in a democratic government here and we believe in an egyptian government not some radical fanatic arab government that was superimposed on them by members of some muslim brotherhood that operates behind the scenes. well, we almost lost egypt, and if egypt would fall today or would have fallen then, there would be no chance of stopping this fanatic movement that threatens the world and threatens especially other muslim countries. there would have been no chance at all.

president al-sisi is a courageous man who step forward and our president took a long time and is still taking a long time in getting solidly behind the effort to prevent egypt from becoming a bastion of fanatic islamic radicalism that would threaten the world. general al-sisi needs for example -- i met with him a year ago. my goodness, we bought these helicopters from the united states and we need them now because there's an insurgency going on with the radicals out in the sinai desert and we need the helicopters and it took forever for this administration, this government to provide the spare parts the spare parts for that effort. they had to jump through hoops. we were doing them a favor. no, we should look at these people as doing us a favor. they are on the front lines

battling this, and general al-sisi did something that all americans and peace-loving people throughout the world should applaud and that is he went directly to muslim groups in egypt and spoke to them and spoke on the record saying we have got to cleanse ourselves from this fanaticism in which we are intolerant of other people's religions. these people who would murder other people and commit acts of terrorism. general -- now president al-sisi that was courageous of him. we need other leaders to follow in his footsteps. has our administration done anything to congratulate general -- now president al-sisi to make an incredible stand? what type of things have we proved that we are now behind nim this effort? he also did something else. president al-sisi, the first

president of egypt to visit a helicopteric church, a christian church in egypt. yet, this administration has been just so-so when it comes to sisi. there's no -- yes, we have not undermined him but we have not given the support which would have been a signal to all the other leaders there to stand firm and america will stand behind you. we have people like for example the king of jordan who was only here just a few days ago and they -- what happened? a jordanian pilot was put into a cage and burned to death as a public spectacle. jordanian pilot. why did they do that? why these fanatics meant to do this? because they meant to terrorize the people of the world.

terrorize people of africa. terrorize people that would stand up against them. what did abdullah do? he left the united states and flew back to jordan and it is now being said that he flew personally flew a bombing mission against the isil people that had burned that man alive. now, there's a leader and we should be backing him up, but then what do we hear just in the paper the other day? that jordan is having difficulty in getting the supplies of weapons and arms they need to make sure that they can stand firm against isil and this horrible radical fanatic movement that's sweeping through that part -- their part of the world. ronald reagan knew that we needed to support great leaders who would help us end the cold war. we will bring about war if the leaders like abdullah, king

abdullah in jordan or general al -- and now president al-sisi in egypt. how can we count on others to take the stand? how about the kurds in northern iraq? they are the ones bearing the burden, bearing the brunt of all the fighting that's going on in iraq. other people when we tried to work things through baghdad and tried to accommodate leaders who halfheartedly in this battle what happened? we gave them enormous amounts of equipment that ended up in the hands of radicals. ended up being used as vehicles and guns. we want to live in a world of tolerance and freedom and peace and prosperity, not radical

fanatic muslim dictatorship. but instead, the kurds have stood firm. the kurds are the one group in iraq that have stood firm and the one group that's received the least support from the united states as compared to the -- and we are now -- baghdad, which wants to put their thumb down on the kurds, we are going along with the demand of those people that all our aid that goes to the kurds goes to baghdad first. . that's recognizing the people who are not really on our side their power over the people who are on our side. there was a meeting in london in the last few days last week, to determine what would go on in iraq. the united states, was, of course, maybe not sitting at the table but helped organize this. we are part of the process of trying to get this meeting together.