the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 242. the nays are 180. the previous question is --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 243 and the nays are 181. the previous question is ordered. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order yet. please take your conversations off the floor.

the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. madam speaker, i rise with a heavy heart, extremely heavy heart to once again have to congratulate my good friend, mike doyle the manager of the democratic baseball team, for another victory, sad but true, sad but true. mr. barton: they played the annual congressional baseball game. it was a spirited game. but for the seventh year in a row mr. doyle's team won. i don't know how to say that. i will say that our team is

back. mark walker, our m.v.p. from north carolina, pitched a good game. he struck out cedric richmond, which i think is probably the first time cedric has not gotten a hit. we had new blood, mr. costello, mr. moolenaar, several others and of course our stalwarts, john shimkus, kevin brady our whip, steve scalise. so we played a good game but the democrats deserved to win. they beat us 5-2. i will say that it was a pretty low blow to have the president of the united states come and interrupt the game take away our momentum right when we had a big rally. but i'm very proud of the republican team, but i do want to congratulate mike doyle and

the democrats. and i yield to mr. doyle. mr. doyle: well, thank you. first, i want to thank my good friend, joe barton. joe, you used the tools that is at your disposal. no, this was a great game. it was good. i think all the fans were treated to a very competitive game this year. we had almost 10,000 people attend the game this year. as we all know -- yeah. the real winners here are charities. this game helps raise money for the washington boys and girls club, the washington literacy council and the national dream foundation. i'm happy to report after expenses we were able to write checks in excess of $100,000 to each of the three charities. so those are the big winners of the game. our team -- this was a hard-fought game. in the last three years that we played this game, our team has made only one error. we made that this game, but i think the difference in the score was we made the plays in

the field. both pitchers were outstanding. your new pitcher, mark, we weren't used to those -- that knuckleball and some of those curves. he kept us off balanced and he pitched a brilliant game. i believe you guys actually had one more hit than we did. cedric richmond coming off shoileder surgery pitched a gutsy game for seven innings. and i should also mention that after striking out he hit a double over the center fielder 's head, just to throw that in. i want to also note, joe donnelly, our first baseman, made some unbelievable plays at first base i think saved the game for us. and then as always anytime i ask linda sanchez to put a batting helmet on she gets a hit. so those three individuals share our team m.v.p.'s and also you know, there's lots of ways to contribute.

and eric swalwell stole three bases for us and scored. he did it all on the base pads and he deserves some notice too. joe, i want to say it was a great game. i want to thank you for how hard your team fought and we look forward to a competitive game next year. we know someday, you know, the shoe will be on the other foot. but for the past seven years, we're kind of enjoying this. so god bless. mr. barton: madam speaker, before i yield back i want to thank leadership on both sides. our speaker, john boehner, our majority leader, kevin mccarthy. of course, our whip, steve scalise, who played in the game. on their side, ms. pelosi, mr. hoyer, mr. clyburn were all there. so both leadership supported the game. it was a good game. we did raise a lot of money for charity. but i put you on notice, mike doyle. the shoe's going to be on the other foot next year. be ready. mr. doyle: talk is cheap. talk is cheap, joe. bring it on.

mr. barton: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say i.a.a. those opposed, no. -- those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from texas. the gentleman calls for -- a recorded vote has been called. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [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 244. the nays are 178. the resolution is adopted. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks

and to include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 2042. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 333 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2042. the chair appoints the gentleman from tennessee mr. duncan, 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. 2042 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 2042, a bill to allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing carbon dioxide emission from existing fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating

units before requiring compliance with such rule and to allow states to protect households and businesses from significant adverse effects on electricity ratepayers, or reliability. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read -- the chair: pursuant to the rule the bill is is recognized the first time. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. whitfield: the bill before us today addresses e.p.a.'s proposed clean power plan for existing power plants under section 111-d of the clean air act. unfortunately, the obama administration has made a decision that they are not going to work with congress, and in order to accomplish his public policy goals he has indicated he's going to use

executive orders and regulations. now, this proposed regulation focuses on power plants. that's why it's called existing coal plant rule. but because of this regulation, once it becomes final, it is only the first step in the administration's plan to regulate other areas of our economy, including sources such as refineries and boilers, cement plants, pulp and paper mills steel mills. since its proposal in june, 201, the subcommittee on energy and power held five hearings on the proposed rule where we heard from e.p.a., ferc, entities within the state, legal experts, and industry stakeholders and manufacturers. now, when mrs. mccarthy comes to congress she always says this proposed rule gives maximum flexibility to the

states. but what she does not say is that e.p.a. and e.p.a. alone sets the emission standard for every state. and there is no flexibility in that. even harvard law school professor lawrence tribe, who taught president obama constitutional law at harvard, testified at one of the hearings that e.p.a.'s proposal raises grave constitutional questions exceeds e.p.a.'s statutory authority and violates the clean air act. the hearing also identified implementation challenges, risks to electric reliability, significantly higher energy costs under the rule. for example economist eugene trisco estimated that for 31 geographically diverse states, electricity rates under the rule could increase by an average of 15% with peak year

increases of 22%. during the period 2017-2031. state officials also appeared expressing the same concerns, and i might say this rule is so complicated that generally e.p.a. allows states three years to develop their state implementation plans but under this proposed rule, which we would know would be final soon, they are given -- giving states 16 months. which is going to be extremely difficult for them to meet. so the states are not only filing lawsuits, as are other entities to try to slow this process down, but they are coming to congress and saying, congress didn't pass this regulation. congress has not asked for this. but the administration unilaterally is imposing it upon the american people. so they are asking us to give them some more time.

so this legislation does specifically that. it does two things. one, it delays the time for the states to submit their implementation plan until after the courts have rendered a decision on whether or not the rule is legal and then if it is found to be legal, the state governors have an option after consulting with their economic development people the e.p.a. people, the attorney general, and other authorities in the state, they have the option, if they find that it significantly and adversely affects their electricity prices and the reliability of electricity, they can opt out of the program. so this bill is simple, simply gives states more time, we are not repealing this power grab of a regulation, but simply

responding to requests from the states and other entities. with that i retain the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey mr. pallone, is recognized. mr. pallone: i reserve right now, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield as much time as he may consume, the gentleman from georgia, mr. bishop. the chair: the gentleman from georgia, mr. bishop, is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman for yielding. . mr. chairman, i'm pleased to be a co-sponsor of the ratepayer protection act. i want to thank ed whitfield for his leadership on this issue. we agree that it's vital that we protect the environment today and for future generations. at the same time, though, we must ensure that we are acting within the law as well as safeguarding american jobs and the economy.

i have serious concerns that the environmental protection agency's proposed clean power rule will be a vast and unprecedented regulatory overreach resulting in higher energy costs loss of jobs and a disruption in the states' ability to generate, transmit, distribute and use electricity. as the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield noted earlier, no less than the renowned harvard law school professor has testified that the e.p.a. lacks the statutory and constitutional authority to adopt its plan. he described the proposed clean power plan as a power grab from the three branches of government. i'm especially concerned, mr. chairman, about the impact that the e.p.a.'s proposed rule will have on georgia ratepayers. the state of georgia has already reduced co-2 emissions by 22% by 2005 and 2012 but

will have no credit for these reductions. under the proposed regulation, georgia would be required to reduce emissions by an additional 44%. the sirks largest reduction of any state -- the sixth largest reduction of any state. georgia will receive no credit toward achieving e.p.a.'s mandated state goal for the two nuclear plants that are being constructed. ratepayers in georgia served by georgia power, the meags and the electric corporate groups will face higher energy bills which will be especially devastating to rural households in the second congressional district which i represent. i believe that this legislation takes a commonsense approach to the issue. it allows for the completion of judicial review before states are required to comply with the clean power plan. in addition, the ratepayer protection act provides for a safe harbor. if a governor determines that

the proposed rule's implement lakes will have an -- implementation will have an adverse impact on the ratepayers or the reliability of the electrical system. i ask my colleagues to support this bill, to ensure ratepayers as well as our nation's economy are protected from an overzealous peaverplet. with that i yield back -- overzealous e.p.a. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to this legislation. the bill before us is dangerous unnecessary and premature. it undermines the cornerstone of the administration's plan to unchecked climate change and the president threatened veto. we should not be messaging bills aimed at gutting draft

e.p.a. rules. as we sit here today, climate change continues to reshape our world. according to noaa 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded and nine of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 2000. and that trend shows no sign of slowing down. we know this warming is due to carbon pollution from fossil fuels accumulating in the atmosphere trapping more heat and changing our climate. last week the pope highlighted our worldwide moral obligation to address climate change. this week e.p.a. released a report which confirms what many in the country are already experiencing, that failing to address climate change will have enormous financial costs. just look at the skyrocketing cost of fighting wildfires, the mounting cost of farmers of losing their crops and cattle to more frequent and severe droughts, the enormous cost of rebuilding infrastructure swept away by more intense storms or threadened by steadily rising seas.

ignoring these costs won't make them go away and the longer we wait to act, the more we allow the costs to compound and accumulate. the more costly it will be to solve the problem. in fact, the projected cost of climate change impacts any short-term costs associated with transitioning to a clean energy he comm which is happening -- energy economy, which is happening already. we need to reduce emissions from carbon power plants which is the largest greenhouse gases in the united states. the clean power plan provides a path to cleaner air, better health a safer climate and a stronger economy. the proposed rule also gives states a lot of flexibility to choose how to achieve their emission reduction goals which are state-specific and cost-effective. this is a moderate and reasonable approach and falls well within the legal authority and responsibility of the e.p.a. to address carbon pollution from power plants. this bill we are considering today would dismiss all of this progress and would cripple the

efforts of the e.p.a. to move forward in the fight against climate change. effectively this bill would amend the clean air act in a harmful and dangerous fashion. this bill establishes an unprecedented extension for every clean power plant deadline until all litigation is concluded. this blanket extension would be given to all polluters incentivizing opponents of the rule to run the clock on frivolous legislation -- litigation, i should say, simply to put off having to reduce their carbon emissions. the bill also allows the governor to say, and i quote that the requirements of the clean power plan don't apply to me. under a bill a governor can opt out of a federal plan giving certain states a free ride to pollute without any consequences. it's one thing to encourage states just to say no but to let a governor declare his state is not subject to the clean air act at all i think, mr. chairman, that just goes too far. as i said before, e.p.a.'s proposed clean power plan is both modest and flexible and

will help us tackle the urgent need to reduce our carbon emissions. just saying no, condemn really future generations is simply not an option. i strongly oppose the bill and i urge a no vote and i would reserve the balance of my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia mr. loudermilk. the chair: the gentleman from georgia, mr. loudermilk, is recognized for three minutes. mr. loudermilk: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to support the readpayer protection rate which is a -- ratepayer protection act which helps protects our consumers from skyrocketing electricity costs. e.p.a. proposed a new set of regulations which will dramatically affect our economy if implemented. the obama administration has been doing its best to convince the american people that these new standards would achieve great progress for our nation calling the proposal the clean power plan. despite the illusions of good

intentions, the devil's in the details of this proposed rule. what the administration does not want us to know is that these standards would wreak havoc on our economy and inflict enormous costs on the american consumers. according to the national economic research associates this would increase electricity prices in my home state of georgia by 12%. while this will be a problem for any state it's especially alarming for me given that georgia already has the 10th highest average electricity bill in the nation. mr. speaker, right now the temperature in my state is 95 degrees. my constituents depend on affordable electricity to stay cool all summer long and the administration's assault on our nation's power plants is totally unacceptable. what's more, the average american household already spends about $15,000 a year to comply with federal regulations. it has been radical proposals like these which have caused our economy to stagnate throughout this administration. even the e.p.a. admits that rule will cost our economy more than $7 billion a year by the year 2030. washington bureaucrats may be

able to afford this assault on our economy but my constituents cannot. the e.p.a. also promotes these regulations with a promise that they would cut 30% of carbon pollution by the year 2030. the inconvenient truth is my state has already reduced its carbon emissions by 33% from 2005 to 2012. why is the administration pursuing these unrealistic regulations when georgia and other states have already dramatically reduced their pollution levels? the bill we are considering today, h.r. 2042, would halt the rules compliance deadlines until litigation on the rule has been completed. the bill would also allow the governor of any state to opt out of the rule's requirement ifs their state's electricity rates would increase significantly as they would in my home state. this commonsense piece of legislation would help bring the u.s. environmental policy back into the real world and allow us to remain economically competitive. i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance

of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i'll yield five minutes to the ranking member of our subcommittee, mr. rush. the chair: the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, is recognized for five minutes. mr. rush: i want to thank you, mr. speaker, and i want to thank the fine ranking member on the full committee, mr. pallone, for yielding this time. mr. speaker, i applaud the obama administration for its veto threat of this abhorrent legislation that we are now considering. this just say no bill which would effectively give governors the power to sabotage e.p.a.'s proposed clean power plan by allowing them to opt out of the federal requirements of the plan based on arbitrary

and ambiguous determinations. mr. speaker when implemented, the clean power plan will allow the e.p.a. to cut common pollution from one of the nation's oldest dirtiest and most inefficient power plants. and we know mr. speaker, that these same power plants account for the largest share of greenhouse gases from stationary sources in the country. and they are responsible for about 1/3 of the total u.s. greenhouse gas emissions. currently, mr. speaker there are no federal limits on the amount of carbon pollution that these same power plants are allowed to emit. the clean power plan would

decrease carbon emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by the year 2030. however mr. speaker, this bill is an attempt to avoid e.p.a.'s efforts before they even had a chance to take hold, despite the fact that the clean power plan gives states great flexibility when implementing the rule based on their existing utility infrastructure and their policies. mr. speaker this the proposed clean power plan could not be more timely as we are experiencing more and more frequent extreme weather events

due to climate change with disastrous effects being felt in our economy and in our communities all across our nation. in fact no region in america has been safe from the impacts of climate change with nearly annual record wildfires, heat waves in the west and the southwest, perennial flooding along the coast and damaging and costly droughts and crop loss in the plains and the american -- and the midwestern portions of our nation. mr. speaker, when implemented, the clean power plan would help to reduce carbon pollution by hundreds of millions of tons decreasing particle pollution such as sulfur dioxide and

nitrogen oxide by hundreds of thousands of tons annually. additionally, mr. speaker, the clean power plan would help protect the health of our most vulnerable citizens -- our children, our older americans, our low-income and minority communities. not only, mr. speaker the majority of the american people believe that climate change is a serious problem and that the government, our government, this federal government, we in this congress should take action to address it and take it now but also the overwhelming majority of our nation's population believe so also. earlier this year the american thoracic society found that by

huge margin most doctors believe that climate change is already negatively impacting their patient's health. 77% of responding doctors reported that the increases in air pollution caused by climate change is making their patients ' illnesses even more severe, a trend, i might add mr. speaker that will steadily increase in the future. mr. pallone: i give the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. . >> those findings are in line with a study conducted by the medical association last year which found older americans, low-income communities, and the state would be disproportionately impacted by climate change if we fail to act. mr. rush: this is not just a political issue.

this is not just a partisan issue. this is also a moral issue. just last week in the landmark encyclicle -- encyclical pope francis himself warned when he stated, cly pat change is a global problem with grave implications. environmental social economic, political it represents one of the most principled challenges facing our humanity. there is an urgent need to develop power plants so that in the next few years the emission of carbon dioxide of other highly polluting gases can be drasseckly reduced, end quote -- drastically reduced, end of quote. i urge all my colleagues, mr. speaker, to heed the warning of our scientists one of the most

foremost authorities the pope himself. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pallone: i give the gentleman additional time that he seeks. mr. rush: i urge all my colleagues. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i would like to say that obviously you can't have a discussion about this regulation without climate change, and frequently we hear that climate change is responsible for every extreme weather condition. i would point out that the economist magazine in its may 5 issue stated it is impossible to say categorically that will climate change has caused any individual storm, blood, drought, heat wave tornado, or hurricane. scientists agree that it is impossible to say that. i would like to make one other comment. the president of the united states believes that climate change is the number one issue facing mankind.

all of us recognize that the climate has been changing since the beginning of time. where we fundamentally disagree with the president is we think there are other more pressing issues dealing with poverty, creating jobs, economic growth, access to clean water, access to health care, fighting diseases like pancreatic cancer. we think those are more urgent. this president's got 1 individual government programs and -- 61 individual government programs and is spending $23 billion a year on climate change in addition to trying to push regulations like this without any involvement of congress. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from north dakota, mr. cramer, a member of the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentleman from north dakota, mr. came cramer is recognized for three

minutes. mr. cramer: i thank the chairman for yielding and for your leadership on this issue. let me kick up where you left off relating to the comments made by the opposition to climate change's role in extreme weather conditions. a couple of years ago there was a weather condition that many people out here refer to as the polar vortex, in north dakota we call that winter. but i think what a lot of people don't know is that during that cold snap they don't know how very susceptible and fragile our system of transmitting and distributing electricity was. largely because we don't have the base load generation that we once had, largely because of this attack on base load fuels like coal. that's really what we are talking about. i spent 10 years prior to coming to congress as one of those energy regulators one ever those people in the state agency the governor would consult as per this law. the governor would consult

before determining whether they should opt out of the clean power plant. it was my responsibility to make sure north dakotans had reliable electricity, that a grid system and distribution system was reliable and could deliver on a regular basis as needed electricity. that the rates remained as they are still today in north dakota among the very lowest in the country. i also had regulation over the coal industry. and i'm also very proud of the fact that while north dakota is a major coal producing state that generates over 4,000 megawatts of electricity at the mine mouth distributes it throughout a robust transmission and distribution system that generates lots of low cost electricity. it also creates lots and lots of good-paying, important jobs. the chairman also in response referenced the importance that republicans are placing on other things besides climate change. things like job creation. the clean power plant is a jobs killer. and it makes us less

compatible less competitive in the global marketplace that's really in many respects a unilateral disarmment of the american economy. at a time when only the great thing going on in the american economy is energy development. so a rule like the clean power plant goes exactly against the one robust and positive if the american economy and that is energy development. let's go back to the issue of the constitutionality, the judicial question. our bill simply provides an opportunity for judicial review. something that the president and e.p.a. should have done before doing this -- finishing this rule and putting this rule out. so i find frankly, the ratepayer protection act to be a rather modest response to the overreach and zeal of the e.p.a. and this administration. with that mr. chairman, thank you for your leadership on that and this important issue. i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman from north dakota yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i now yield to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 2042. the so-called ratepayer protection act does nothing to protect any of us. in fact, it does just the opposite. this bill would simply continue this majority's policy of sticking their head in the sand and doing nothing to address the serious problems of climate change. as of pope has said climate change is reality. it's impacting our lives every day. it's impacting our economy. and it's only going to get worse. we are confronted almost daily with new evidence that climate change is leading to increased health risks, threatening our environment, costing our economy billions of dollars.

studies have shown that climate change can lead and does lead to higher rates of asthma, reduces crop yield, acid phiing our oceans, increasing the risk for harmful ageal blooms. it's threatening drinking and agriculture water supplies in so many locations, while warmer climates are increasing the severity of storms. a study also showed that climate change could undo many of the improvements we have seen in human well-being and life expectancy over the last half century. the power sector is the largest source of u.s. greenhouse gas emissions. accounting for nearly a third of the u.s. total, while we will continue to depend on fossil fuels for some time, we can and we must do more to limit their impacts on our climate. the clean power plan does just that by setting carbon reduction goals for each state and allowing states to implement customized plans to

meet those goals. the clean power plan will help maintain an affordable, reliable energy system. while cutting pollution and protecting public health in the environment now and future generations. yet h.r. 2042 would derail the clean power plan and all the health and economic benefits that will come with it. the bill is full of excuses to support inaction but does nothing to solve the problem. this inaction on climate change is putting our constituents and our future generations at risk. it's long past time to acknowledge the causes of climate change to tackle the issue head-on. it's time for us to work together to address this problem not to pass legislation that continues to ignore it. for these reasons and so many others, i strongly oppose h.r. 2042 and i urge my colleagues to vote against this as well. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: continue to

reserve time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky continues to reserve. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield now two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. green, is recognized for two minutes. mr. green: thank you mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to h.r. 2042 the ratepayer protection act of 2015. the e.p.a.'s clean power plan has raised a number of justifiable concerns. however, what i'd like to find a solution for the issues raised by today's bill don't believe the present bill is the correct solution. for more than a decade, the focus of interenvironment debate has been on greenhouse gas emissions. in that time we passed two comprehensive bills while the e.p.a. has promulgated dozens of rules. i'm not asking -- raising cane with the e.p.a., the agency backed by the supreme court has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. including carbon. the agency, however, has a different approach to

regulating than i think many members of congress on both sides would prefer. i acknowledge that global climate change issues are difficult and the legislation would require compromise, but this bill doesn't accomplish that. congress should create a regulatory framework for the 21st century economy and environment. we should recognize that human activity has impacted the climate but that doesn't mean regulating sectors of our economy out of existence. regardless of the public outreach conducted by the agency regulatory overreach can occur. i don't think allowing each success fifth administration to prescribe policies that affect so much of our way of life is the correct course of action. we need to recognize our industries and more importantly our workers need time to adjust to the new environmental realities and implement changes both technological and educational. i know many of my colleagues agree our job is to ensure each of our constituencies is equally represented. i prefer we sit down and craft a bill that addresses the many challenges we face not only domestically but as a world

leader. unfortunately, the present bill doesn't address those issues i have laid out in a balanced and complete way. allowing for endless legal challenges of partisan political decisions is not the proper way to handle an issue that affects the entire scope of the environment and the economy. today's bill only as part of the challenge, the part that directly in front of us and i don't agree with that approach. i'd like the opportunity to sit down with my colleagues and draft fair and comprehensive legislation that reasonably balances the interest of all parties rather than sector by sector approach that balances none. i want to make sure the folks back home get what they need. i think it's an opportunity to bring all sides together. i have heard certainly from many groups. they all want the same thing but they want certainty. mr. speaker, could i have 30 more seconds? mr. pallone: i yield another 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. green: we want to be certain their companies will be profitable and grandchildren have a clean environment.

we can accomplish these goals not with endless delay or agency degree. i want to thank my colleague chairman whitfield, for addressing part of the problem. but let's work together to solve the whole problem. for these reasons i oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i'd like to ask the chair how many minutes remain on both sides? the chair: 15 1/2 minutes remain on both sides. mr. whitfield: thank you very much. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to one of the original co-sponsors of this legislation, mr. griffith of virginia who is a member of the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. griffith, is recognized for three minutes. mr. griffith: thank you, mr. chairman. ladies and gentlemen, earlier we heard the gentleman from illinois say that this was a just say no bill. you bet it is. that's exactly what it is. it's a just say no bill. no to weaker electric grid. no to fewer jobs, particular-l

manufacturing and also in the coal and energy industries. no regulations that do little to help the environment but do a lot to raise your electric rates. when we are talking about protecting the ratepayer, that's who we are talking about, the average man and woman in this country, the families that are out there struggling, trying to make ends meet in an economy that's flat. this bill says no. we are not going to pass a bill on to you for little gain in the environment but to raise your electric rates tremendously. the american families cannot afford it. and as an example, we heard from a former regulator earlier but the virginia state corporation commission, and that's the organization in virginia appointed judges who make the decisions on what you're going to pay for power in virginia based on what's an appropriate amount. they said that customers in virginia will likely pay significantly more for their electricity. the incremental cost of compliance for one utility

alone, dominion virginia power would likely be between $5.5 billion and $6 billion on a net present value basis. that's just for one of the companies providing power. let me give you an idea, mr. chairman, what that means to the people of virginia. . in my district i have 29 different jurisdictions. only two of those jurisdictions get their power from do minimumion virginia power. remember it's going to cost the rate pairs $5.5 billion to $6 billion. that doesn't cover the whole state or my district at all. and going back to the virginia state corporation commission, they say contrary to the claim that rates will go up, but the

bills will go down, experience and costs in virginia make it extremely unlikely that either electric rates or bills in virginia will go down as a result of the proposed regulation. so this is a very important measure, one of our prior speakers said, we should take the time to craft some type of a compromise. this bill puts everything on hold until court cases can be decided. and let's governors come in and say we can't have this happen in our commonwealth. that's important and maybe if we get this bill passed we can find some way to compromise between the regulators at the e.p.a. and the interest of the rate pairs. but because they are going to come out with this rule later this summer and the states have 13 months to come up with a plan to meet the regulations, we do not have the ability to give that time.

i appreciate the time and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from florida. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. castor: mr. speaker this is a climate change denial bill and don't be fooled by its name. ignoring the impacts of climate change will heap huge costs on taxpayers. this bill is a disservice to america. and in addition to being very costly to consumers, it sherks our ability to address the costing impact of changing climate. the republicans' plan is to say no and let our children and grandchildren suffer the consequences without doing anything meaningful. this position is indefensible and will prove very costly indeed.

today's bill would amend the clean air act to give a free pass to states that refuse to comply. and unless we work together to meet the modern challenge of the changing climate, this is going to be very expensive for our neighbors back home, especially in states like mine, florida. here are some of the huge costs we are looking at. rising property insurance rates and flood insurance rates federal emergency aid that we have to pay out for things like superstorm tornadoes tropical storms drought, fire and extreme heat. in addition to property insurance and flood insurance, property taxes are going to go up because our local communities are going to be saddled with the costs of repairing stormwater infrastructure and addressing drinking water. this is going to be expensive. in florida, we see saltwater intrusion because of rising

tides. there is a terrible drought in california. these are going to require expensive solutions unless we tackle it on the front end and there will be harm to coastal communities where we will have to pay more to renourish our beaches and take care of the life blood of our economy, tourism, fishing and a beautiful economy. i recommend a no vote on this bill and i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentlewoman has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from florida, mr. bilirakis. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. bilirakis: i appreciate it very much. this is about safeguards to ensure my constituents are protected from the e.p.a.'s overreach and higher energy prices. the e.p.a.'s proposal under this rule has drawn widespread concern. it places a heavier burden on

florida than other states, despite the fact that florida has reduced its carbon emissions by 20% since 2005. congress must act now to protect the every day american who faces the potential threat of unreliable services and ballooning electricity costs. with the economy growing at a feeble pace, my constituents cannot afford to have their power bill increased. we should be working to support new technologies to safely harness america's energy boom, not saddle our constituents with regulations that will increase the cost of living. let's focus on all the above energy strategy. unleashing america's domestic, renewable and nonrenewable resources to reduce the costs of groceries and the costs for heating and cooling your home.

this bill will allow each state to have their own opportunity to assess the proposed plan for their state. 32 states have made legal objections to this rule. 34 states have objected to e.p.a.'s rushed time line. i'm glad we are taking action here today in a bipartisan fashion. i commend chairman whitfield and representative griffith, representative bishop and representative peterson on the rate pair protection act. please vote for this bill. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield two 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. mr. tonko: this is a misguided attempt to hold back change and progress. climate change is a problem. we must deal with it.

the clean power plant -- plan is an important step in that direction. it's very disappointing to hear such a can't-do attitude. we have been a nation that tackles big problems rather than denying them. some states have achieved reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through carbon trading renewable portfolio standards and investments in clean energy. my home state has made great strides and if there is a flaw in the proposed rule, it is that the proposal asks states that have already done a lot to reduce their emissions and modernize electric grids to do even more. by contrast, the requirements on the states that have resisted change and done far less are asked only to get started. this bill, advises some states to avoid doing their fair share to address the serious environmental and economic threat posed by climate change.

new york state will continue to work on this problem as will a number of other states that have taken the steps i mentioned earlier, but it would be nice if our neighbors helped to address the problem that we all have a role -- had a role in creating. this bill should be defeated. it will not go far in the senate. and it would not get signed by our president. if consideration is indeed a waste of time. we should be using our time to find real solutions to the problems we face. this bill offers no solutions, just another way to avoid addressing our problems. i urge defeat of h.r. 2042. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: we have heard a lot of discussion today about how important it is with the clean energy plan to address c.o. 2 emissions. you would think this clean energy plan is going to make a

tremendous difference. the energy information administration recently reported that u.s. energy-related c.o. 2 emissions will remain flat through 2040 and below their 2005 levels without the clean energy plan. so this clean energy plan is being elevated to do some dramatic good. the fact is, the u.s. is already doing more than most countries. and i would point out that in the coming decades, more than 2/3 of the world's energy-related c.o. 2 emissions will come from the developing countries in the world. we are being penalized in america although we have made great strides and that's why we are trying to give states more time to address this very complex regulation. i would at this time like to

yield three minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from ohio, who is a member of the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> i rise today in strong support of chairman whitfield's legislation, h.r. 2042 the ratepayer protection act. you know, this rule, the clean power plan by the e.p.a. is an unprecedented rule. one that has the potential to devastate ohio's coal industry. that's the very same industry that employs thousands of people throughout eastern and southeastern ohio and provides homes and businesses with affordable, reliable electricity. the rate payer protection act will stop this devastation. mr. johnson: 70% of ohio's electricity today, 70% of ohio's electricity is currently

provided by coal. moreover, coal miners already have a difficult and stressful job as it is and now because of the e.p.a.'s clean power plan, they now will have to worry about whether or not they will even have a job when they show up for work. the rate payer protection act is an essential check on the e.p.a.'s extreme emission standards and allows governors to use common sense to opt out of -- opt their state out of the rule should they determine it will negatively affect its rate payers or grid reliability and extends the rule's compliance dates pending judicial review. that's common sense, because shouldn't our states have a say in our energy future? especially when you consider that over 32 states have raised legal objections to the rule and 34 have objected to the e.p.a.'s rush regulatory time lines. e.p.a.'s carbon emission

regulations have made it unfeasible to build a new coal-fired power plant in america. we cannot afford to shut down existing plants and this very important industry as well. i support the legislation. i urge my colleagues to. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two 1/2 minutes. mr. lowenthal: i thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding. i also rise in strong opposition to h.r. 2042. no one wants to see new rules and regulations just for the fun of it. and we should not take this e.p.a. rule lightly. but here is why we must let this

rule move forward. one, climate change is real. two, it is caused by greenhouse gases that are released from human activities. and three it has all -- already been changing the world as we know it. pope francis in praise be to you, points out that, and i quote reducing greenhouse gases requires honesty courage and responsibility above all on the part of those countries which are the more powerful and pollute the most end of quote. the pope is right. we need to be honest about climate change. we need to be courageous and face the future. and we need to take responsibility for our carbon pollution. that is exactly why we need to

work with the e.p.a. with states and with our great research centers and with our energy sector to increase efficiency and to transition to cleaner fuels and renewable energy sources. the clean power plan and the authority granted by the clean air act is the vehicle we have right now to cut greenhouse gas emissions and to clean up polluted air. but my colleagues are telling states they should just say no and completely opt out of doing their part and subject this rule which, by the way, we have not even seen its final -- seen it in its final place, to years and years of delay. this is not honest. it is not courageous and it is not a responsible way to deal with greenhouse gas pollution.

i urge my colleagues to vote no on the irresponsible and short sided rate payer protection act. thank you. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i would like to inquire on the remaining time. . >> at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from california, mrs. walters, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california, mrs. walters, is recognized for three minutes. mr. walter: thank you mr. speaker -- mrs. walters: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 204 rk the ratepayer protection act. this bill would protect states and families from e.p.a. regulatory overreach and significant spikes in electricity costs. last june the e.p.a. proposed a rule for existing power plants known as the clean power plan. this rule would mandate new

carbon reduction goals father each state. effectively changing the way electricity is generated, distributed and consumed in the united states. the economic impact of this rule is very troubling. it could mean increased electricity costs and reduced reliability for consumers. in fact under the clean power plan, electricity rates would increase by an average of 15% in a majority of states. this bill would protect ratepayers and exempt states from complying with the rule until all judicial reviews are complete. it would also allow governors to opt out of compliance with the rule if there would be a significant impact on the state's ratepayers. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan, commonsense bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from new england is recognized -- new jersey is recognized. >> i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the

gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for to -- for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. i find this whole conversation somewhat surreal. because in my community in portland, oregon, the city is unveiling a new climate action plan to reduce local carbon emissions even more. we're already below 1999 levels on a per capita basis. but our community has committed going forward to a clean energy future to do our part. and it's jarring that at the same time we would consider on the floor of the house rolling back the modest balanced approach that the administration has undertaken with the carbon rule. a carbon rule that's not yet finalized, a carbon rule that is dedicated to working with local states to try and fine tune it, to make sure that it

works right. more public input. but nonetheless, even though it's a little late in coming that the united states steps up we have a major responsibility. we are the largest contributor to carbon pollution in the world. and we're number two now behind china. we have a responsibility to do our part. but we have a responsibility to do our part not just in terms of global leadership and trying to change this tremendously destructive trajectory we're on with carbon pollution as we will no doubt hear from the pope in three months in this chamber. but it is part of what's going to happen with other countries in the world. if the richest most powerful nation in the world can't step up to do its part, how can we expect to exert global leadership and prevent catastrophic events elsewhere? the notion that somehow this is

going to be an economic catastrophe is balderdash. the reason the coal industry is in trouble because -- is because coal is dirty and less efficient than natural gas. it is not a foundation for our energy future. being able to move to a low-carbon future is a bedrock for economic prosperity in the future. we just heard from a gentlelady from california, that has proven to be an international leader. their economy is going great guns they're reducing their carbon footprint their carbon use. and people confuse energy price -- mr. pallone: i yield the gentleman another minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. blumenauer: the price of energy with the cost of energy. what's happened in states like california that have been

creative in terms of energy conservation and pricing it properly, use goes down. some of the people with the lowest rates waste the most energy. they actually spend more. part what have we did with climate legislation as the gentleman from new jersey well knows, that actually would have reduced the cost for most people. we don't want to be on the wrong side of history on this. because it will have a devastating effect. the administration's modest support of proposal -- ought to be supported. we shouldn't pretend we can piecemeal it out to the states to undercut it. we ought not to pretend that this is not a real problem that deserves our attention going forward. to waste time today with something that would turn the clock back, that won't pass the senate, if it did, it would be vetoed is sad. we ought to be working together on a low-carbon future, to be

able to make it work right for each and every community. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. >> mr. whitfield: at this time -- mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield to mr. scalise of indiana. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my friend from kentucky, the chairman of the energy subcommittee, for yielding and for bringing forward the ratepayer protection act. mr. chairman, this bill goes directly at the heart of these radical regulations coming out of agencies like the e.p.a. that are killing jobs in america. but when you look at this regulation, this propose albie the e.p.a. that this bill addresses, the e.p.a. is proposing to bring forward more radical regulations that are going to increase the cost of household electricity for every family in this country. the estimates show you'll see over a 12% increase in household electricity rates

mr. chairman. if the e.p.a. was allowed to move forward. and at least when you look at what this legislation does, it stands up and protects hardworking taxpayers who are tired of all these regulations one after the other coming forward. not through legislation passed by congress in open public settings like this where you can watch on c-span the deliberations, no mr. chairman, this is coming forward through unelected bureaucrats over at the e.p.a. who want to carry out their own agenda. that they can't pass through congress. so they try to just ram it through in regulations that aren't backed up by science, but in fact would actually lead to more jobs being shipped out of this country. and where would those jobs go, mr. chairman? to places like china and india and brazil and other countries that don't have the environmental standards that we have. you'll actually see more carbon emitted. if the e.p.a. was successful in moving forward with regulations like this, that this bill is addressing. so i want to commend the chairman for bringing this

forward. i think you're going to see a large bipartisan vote in support of this legislation because people across the country are saying, enough is enough. if the proposal is so good by the e.p.a., why not move it through congress? would the i would not have public hearings on c-span and present the facts? and point out, and go and defend the increases that families are going to have on their household electricity rates. they want to hide, mr. chairman. they want to hide and try to just sneak this through. with the regulation without any public vote on the bill. so here you've got a bill that says, let's slow this process down. let's actually give states the ability to opt out. if they realize just how devastating it will be, not only to the states' economies, but to the taxpayers in each state. in my state of louisiana, this propose albie the e.p.a. that we're trying to stop would yield about a 13% increase in people's household electricity rates. we're already paying too much. the cost of things are already

too high because of regulations coming out of washington, not imposed by congress, but imposed by unelected bureaucrats. enough is enough. let's rein in these unelected bureaucrats and bring some common sense back to the process of getting our economy back on track. i urge approval of this legislation that's so important to get our economy moving again and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana yields back his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: it bothers me a great deal when i hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle act as if we don't already have the clean air act in place. the fact of the matter is, the clean air act was passed by both democrats and republicans back in 1970. it's been amended and changed several times since then. but the e.p.a.'s simply acting on a law that was passed by the

congress. there's no such thing here that the e.p.a. is somehow doing something that they shouldn't be doing, which is what's being suggested by some of my colleagues on the republican side. and i guess is the basis of this legislation. the e.p.a. is regulating based on laws that were passed by congress. that's what an agency does. but many of my colleagues on the republican side continue to raise the false specter of job losses and high economic costs to try to block the president and the e.p.a. from implementing the clean power plan to curb power plant pollution. i want to say, going back to the original clean air act, the history of the clean air act shows that they are wrong, that we can have both a clean environment and a strong economy. this is an argument that industry has used every time the clean air act has been strengthened. every time that new regulations come out that are trying to address the problems with clean air and trying to make the air healthier for all americans, we hear industry argue that

somehow there's going to be job losses or there's going to be huge rate increases. when congress debated the 1990 clean air act amendments, the oil industry said, and i quote, that technology to meet these standards simply does not exist today. and predicted major supply disruptions and chemical companies said the law would close severe -- cause severe economic and social disruption. none of these gloom and doom predictions came true. instead our air got cleaner and our economy flourished. the history of the clean air act shows that the united states can reduce carbon pollution while creating jobs and strengthening the economy. since its adoption in 1970, the clean air act has reduced key air pollutant business 2/3. while the economy has tripled in size. the clean air act has also made the united states a world leader in pollution control technology, generating hundreds of billions of dollars for u.s. companies and creating millions of jobs. i want to stress, i think we're at a critical crossroads here. if we continue to ignore the science, we will cause

catastrophic climate change and saddle our economy with soaring bills for disaster relief. if we invest in the clean energy technologies of the future, we can protect our environment and grow our economy. this idea of juxtaposing jobs and the economy versus the environment is simply not true and the history of the clean air act shows that it's not true. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: may i ask once again how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman from kentucky has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from new jersey has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. whitfield: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman can i ask if the gentleman is prepared to close? i know you go after me. mr. whitfield: yes, we are. mr. pallone: all right. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized to

close debate for the minority. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself the remainder of the time. you know, the other question that i keep hearing from the other side of the aisle is that somehow they just ignore the public health aspects of this. i mean, obviously we're concerned about climate change. but it's also the question of the public health. there are consequences to inaction. in other words if this bill were to pass, and the clean power plan were not to go into effect, there are consequences. e.p.a. estimates that in 2030 the clean power plan will avoid up to 3,300 heart attacks, prevent 150,000 asthma attacks in children, lead to 2,00 fewer hospital admissions -- 2800 fewer hospital admissions. these benefits are worth an estimated $93 billion per year mr. chairman. these are human health benefits that could be delayed or perhaps permanently lost if this bill takes effect. the health benefits potentially blocked by the bill are

especially important for the most vulnerable among us. our babies, our kids, our seniors. and those with asthma. the legislation grants a blanket extension for all clean power plan-compliant states until all opportunities for legal challenges have been exhausted and this unprecedented suspension of critical clean air regulations would occur regardless of a lawsuit's merits or likelihood of success. so what you're doing, what the republicans are doing with this bill is denying the health benefits that come from the clean power plan. i just want to close, mr. chairman, by reminding everyone that the president has said that he will veto this legislation and so this effort with this legislation is totally in vein. it probably won't pass the senate -- vain. it probably won't pass the senate. the president will veto it. let me read what the president says in his statement where he says he will veto the bill. he says, the bill is premature and unnecessary, it is premature because the clean power plan has yet to be finalized. it's unnecessary because e.p.a.

has made clear its commitment to address concerns raised during the public comment period including concerns related to costs and reliability when issuing the final clean power plan. the effect of the bill would therefore be a wholly unnecessary postponement of reductions of harmful air pollution. the bill is unprecedented. thed a administration's not a-- the administration's not aware of any instance where congress has enacted implementation to stay a standard before judicial review. to do so here before the rule's even final would be an unprecedented interference with e.p.a.'s efforts to fulfill its duties under the clean air act. so, once again my colleagues on the republican side have said that this is only a proposed rule. why are they passing legislation to deal with a rule that hasn't even been finalized? i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized to close debate for the majority. .

mr. whitfield: the reason we are acting, five years that i have been chairman of this subcommittee, we have had many hearings on proposed rules and regulations coming out of the e.p.a. and only one time did they actually sit down with the affected parties and try to work out a real compromise and that was on the cmet rule. other than that, they made it clear they intend to move forward with this regulation. lawsuits have been filed, but the courts have said, it's not ripe yet, so if we don't take action, it's going to become final and then you go to court and takes years. so we are saying, let's pass this legislation to delay the implementation until the court makes a decision on whether or not it's legal. and we have real reason to believe that it's not legal, because never have they ever attempted to regulate an

existing source under 111 life d except in minute circumstances. now, i agree that since the original clean air amendments of 1990, our economy has improved. we have had a lot more jobs. but the global market institute last month issued a report, an arm of goldman sachs a respected institution, and they pointed out that in the obama administration, since 2009, the number of small businesses in america are 600,000 less today than in 2009. six million fewer jobs today than in 2009. and they also went on to say that the reason for this is the overzealous issue of regulations

in this administration. and that is why the hispanic chamber of commerce representing thousands of small businessmen and women around the country have endorsed this legislation. that is why the african-american chamber of commerce has written a letter saying -- explaining the detrimental impacts of this legislation. that is why over 30 some states have come to us and asked us to give them more time. as i said in the beginning, this is a complex rule. it certainly applies to more than just coal because it is the first time that e.p.a. has ever attempted to go outside the source of the emission to reduce the emission. so we're not talking about not only coal-fired electricity plants, but the e.p.a. sets the standard for every state, the

emission cap. and then they say you go fix it so the states are going to be forced to go to other industries and look at building materials in homes, to adopt renewable mandates to meet these very stringent standards. so it's a complex rule. eep -- e.p.a. usually gives three years to come up with a plan. in this instance they are giving them 13 months, which is unheard of. so this legislation is very simple. let's delay the state implementation plans until the courts render a decision. and i urge our members to support this commonsense legislation. and yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman from kentucky has expired. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule and shall be order to be considered as an original bill. an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-20. 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 house report 114-177. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-177. for what purpose does the

gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time -- the chair: does the gentleman have an amendment? mr. pallone: amendment number one. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one printed in house report of 114-177 offered by mr. pallone of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield myself such time as i may consume in support of my amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: my amendment includes language identical to an amendment recently offered by senator bennett and approved in the senate budget process. it's simple enough, in order to opt out governor must state that the state or federal plan would promote national security economic growth and public health by addressing human

induced climate change through the increased use of clean energy, energy efficiency and reduction in carbon pollution, unquote. this clear and concise language passed the senate in a budget bill with the support of seven republican senators along with all the democratic senators. republican senators like heller, kirk portman voted for this language as did the chair of the senate energy committee the senator from alaska. let me quote quote senator mampin from west virginia. no question that climate change is real and billions of people have impacted the climate. this supports clean energy technology including advanced fossil energy and supports energy efficiency which reduces carbon. we can protect the environment for future generations while ensuring we have affordable and

reliable energy sources today. that's the quote from the senator from west virginia. i think we should be clear where members of this committee stand on the reality of human-induced climate change and whether or not it needs to be addressed. senators had to stand up and be counted and we here in the house should do the same. some on the republican side of the aisle said they are not climate deniers. if that's the case, this should be an easy vote in my opinion. but it wouldn't surprise me if some or all of the republicans oppose this amendment. in the energy and commerce committee, it was voted down twice, first in the subcommittee and then in the full committee along party lines. let me be clear, mr. chairman. this amendment still allows the government to opt out of the federal plan. it doesn't change the substance of the bill. this amendment is for anyone who believes that climate change regardless of their views on various approaches to deal with the problem. you can vote for my amendment

and if you must still oppose the clean power plan. if you vote against my amendment, it can only mean in my opinion that you are against any solution to climate change. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. mr. whitfield: thank you very much. and i want to say i have the utmost respect for my colleague from new jersey, mr. pallone who is the ranking member of energy and commerce. he is thoroughly prepared and does a great job, but i respectfully must disagree with him on this amendment. just reading the amendment doesn't seem to be that much wrong with it and really there's not that much wrong with it, but i would point out that this

amendment suggests that the federal government is not taking action about climate change. the fact is, we have 18 federal agencies administering 61 separate programs on climate change. and since 2008, we have spent over $77 billion addressing it and that's not even including the regulations coming out of e.p.a. last year alone, the federal government spent $23 billion on climate change. and i would just point out that this bill is about responding to states who are asking us for help. they need more time to address this very complex regulation that will be coming out of e.p.a. very soon. and we can't have a debate about it without talking about climate change. but as i said earlier everyone recognizes the climate has been changing since the beginning of

time. i read an article the other day, 13th century, they were growing grapes in northern england. that's not true today. where we differ with the president is that the president has made it very clear that he thinks climate change is the number one issue facing mankind. we recognize that it's a problem, but we think there are other more pressing issues out there. and that this administration seems to be obsessed with climate change. we think creating jobs, economic growth, clean water health care trying to solve pan cre attic cancer, we have countries from africa, bangladesh telling us we are more concerned with having electricity, just having enough food. so that's the big difference in the two -- between us and the

president. so like i said we're simply trying to give states more time giving them the option to opt out. if we need to, we want the courts to render a decision that this is legal before they have to start spending the resources and the money to respond to it. and for that reason, i would respectfully disagree with this amendment. and ask that our members vote against it. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield myself such time that remains. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for the remaining time. mr. pallone: i would say that i respect my colleague from kentucky a great deal but i don't see how this amendment even says that climate change is a priority. it's simply saying that it should be addressed in the context of any governor's effort to opt out.

i don't think governors should be opting out, but if they decide to do so, they should be able to certify the reference to these various issues including public health and climate change. and again, we talk about climate change. i understand what the gentleman is saying but in terms of priorities, keep in mind that public health is a priority. the gentleman mentioned pan cre attic cancer and the grew that came to see you yesterday, we don't know what the cause of it is. there may be environmental causes in the air that lead to cancer. so i think it does need to be a priority. climate change does need to be a priority. you can vote for this amendment without saying that climate change is your biggest priority. we are saying that when a governor decides to opt out, which i don't think they should that they certify that they've

looked at the public health. they looked at climate change and looked at increased use of clean energy and other issues. and i see no reason why anyone, you know, on either side of the aisle shouldn't support the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time and urge passage of the amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. pallone: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. pallone: yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-177. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. rush: mr. speaker i have an

amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-177 offered by mr. rush of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 33, the gentleman from illinois mr. rush, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. . mr. rush: thank you mr. speaker. the just say no bill would give governments the power to opt out of the federal requirements of the e.p.a.'s proposed clean power plan if they decide that complying with the plan would have an adverse effect on either rates or reliability. unfortunately mr. speaker, the language allowing a governor to opt out is ambiguous and does not take into account other

costs that states are already paying due to the impacts of climate change. so mr. speaker in order to address this issue, i'm offering a straightforward amendment that simply states that a governor must certify that within his or her state, any ratepayer increases associated with implementing a state or federal plan would be greater than any costs associated with responding to extreme weather conditions associated with human-caused climate change. mr. speaker this would include the costs associated with cleaning up after mass flooding

or intense wildfires, more frequent and intense storms as well as the cost associated with loss of equipment and livestock due to increased drought. mr. speaker, as any state that has had to deal with the estimate -- aftermath of any of these destructive, stream weather events can attest -- extreme weather events can attest, americans are already shouldering the costs of climate change and these costs are getting worse and worse. in fact, according to the national climate assessment, if we do not seriously invest in addressing climate change impacts -- impacts now, then we're getting -- then we can expect to see more expenses and costly future damages associated with -- and affecting almost every facet of

our society. from negative health impacts to stressing our infrastructure and water system, to harmeling our national security up and to including hurting our overall long-term economic growth. mr. speaker, just two case ago -- days ago, on monday, the e.p.a. in collaboration with the massachusetts institute of technology the pacific northwest national lab and the national renewable energy laboratory released a peer-reviewed study detailing the costs if we fail to address climate change. this report stated that it could cost 12000 lives from extreme temperatures and 57,000 lives from poor air quality in

the year 2100. as well as cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars each and every he -- every year. this analysis also looked at the impact of climate change on home electricity -- home electricity infrastructure, forestry and the ecosystem. it found that if we acted to reduce emissions we could avoid loss of life reduce the number of droughts and floods and save up to $34 billion in power system costs in the year 2050 alone. so mr. speaker, with all of these dire warnings coming from most experts, as well as from mother nature herself, we cannot allow governors to just say no to reducing harmful pollutants from their states

and simply putting their heads in the sand. mr. speaker, i urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, to ensure that governors are held accountable for their failure to act to reduce harmful pollutants that impact the overall public good. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman wish to reserve the balance of his time mr. rush: i reserve mr. speaker. the chair: the time of the gentleman from illinois has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman claim the time in opposition? mr. whitfield: i do. the chair: the gentleman voiced for five minutes. mr. whitfield: -- is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: thank you mr. chairman. with great respect to my friend from illinois who i've had the privilege of setting -- sitting through five years, it senals like, of hear -- it seems like, of hearings every day with mr. rush, i do rise in opposition to this amendment.

his amendment would basically say that state governors must certify that the cost of the ratepayers under e.p.a.'s 111-d rule would exceed the cost associated with responding to extreme weather events. i point out once again that in the economist magazine just this may a few weeks ago, they were quoting scientists who were saying, it is impossible to say cat gorically that climate change -- categorically that climate change has caused any individual storm, flood drought, heat wave, tornado, hurricane or any other adverse weather effect. so that correlation has simply not been established scientifically. this amendment -- so this amendment would require state governors to make a certification on something that they cannot do. even e.p.a. itself will not and cannot do, which is to show any

direct benefit on climate events from their rule. e.p.a. has said in their own testimony that this rule, this regulation, will not have a significant impact on climate events in the u.s. as a matter of fact, in april testimony before congress indicated that e.p.a. could not predict the impact of the rule on any of its climate indicators. so, they're adopting this rule as simply following up on the president's georgetown speech in which he laid out his climate plan. but i would like to point out, america is addressing climate change i would say once again, we have 61 government programs involved, we have 18 federal agencies involved, we spent a total of 77 -- $77 billion since 2008. we're doing all sorts of things. this bill is simply to give

states enough time to respond to this very complex regulation , until after the courts have rendered a decision. and so with that i would respectfully request people to oppose the rush amendment and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. rush: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-177. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition?

does the gentleman have an amendment? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-177 offered by mr. huizenga of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from michigan, mr. huizenga, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from kentucky, for bringing this important bill to the floor, to empower states to protect consumers from higher electric rates and to ensure grid reliability. when i was in the state legislature back in michigan, i served as the vice chair of our energy and technology committee and spent a lot of work and a lot of time on that grid reliability and cost issues. under the clean power plan the e.p.a. would set mandatory carbon dioxide mission levels for each state and would require that they submit state

plans to meet their e.p.a.-established quote-unquote goals. while i have many concerns about the proposed rule, i am offering this amendment to highlight how the e.p.a.'s approach to calculating emissions actually discourages the kind of emission reductions that it's intended to promote. here's how. the e.p.a.'s compliance formula does not include a way to calculate the benefits of clean energy storage. michigan is a prime example of the importance of energy storage via the luddington punch storage reservoir in the second district. it was the largest pumped storage hydraulic facility -- hydroelectric facility in the world when it was constructed. i remember as a young man my dad was in construction and we would do sunday drives, an hour and a half north, just to see the progress on this. it's a 842-acre reservoir that's 2 1/2 miles long and holds 27 billion gallons of water and in the last couple of years, it now includes a wind farm with 56 turbines that are

generating an additional 100 megawatts. luddington can generate up to 1,872 megawatts which is enough electricity to serve a community of 1.4 million residential customers. here's how the pump storage works. at night when electric rates are low and oftentimes the wind is blowing in west michigan, and those turbines are going luddington's reversible turbines down at the lake level pump water up the 363-foothill from lake michigan to the reservoir. then during the day when electric demand shy the reservoir releases water to flow downhill and it turns the turbines to make carbon-free electricity. and that is very, very helpful obviously especially in the summer time when we have peak times. in fact, when i was in the state legislature, i was standing next to those turbines and we got the call or they got the call that they needed peak electricity because a substation had gone down in southeast michigan and

literally within 10 minutes those turbines were spinning and producing electricity and putting it back out on the grid. thereby saving a whole lot of expense as they were going to look at needing to go out onto the miso system to purchase that electricity. in addition to it being carbon-free, there's no other emissions from being pumped -- from the storage generation either. ironically the proposed rule would penalize states like michigan and virginia that have prudently invested in energy storage technology because of the emissions and megawatt hours from plants used to charge the storage system are included in the equation. however the megawatt hours charged from the system are not. thus, according to the e.p.a., a state's emissions intensity actually increases, increases if they utilize clean storage energy. it's this is exact opposite of what i hope is the e.p.a.'s goal of this rule. it encourages states to include

clean energy storage in their compliance plans. i encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment and the underlying bill so that states can best protect their residents from significant economic and reliability impacts, the proposed rule could have. at this time i'd also like to recognize my colleague from michigan, mr. kildee. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to my friend, mr. huizenga from michigan. he has his photo of the hydroelectric pump storage facility. his is from the right. i have a picture from the left. it's a different view. but it's the same facility. this is really important. i support this amendment with electricity demands varying, as mr. huizenga said, throughout peak and nonpeak times, michigan companies produce and store, reserve energy in this facility for future use when demand is high.

which provides, as was said, provides energy literally at a moment's notice. which is critical for grid stability and also critical to keep prices low for our consumers. this technology allows our companies to respond quickly when demand exceeds base load capacity, especially during extreme weather events such as heat waves or polar vortexes. the e.p.a. has repeatedly recognized the need for large scale storage facilities like luddington's and helped pump -- and how it can fill this role. the e.p.a.'s proposed rule compliance formula does not include a way to calculate the benefits of pumped hydroelectric storage. with this amendment we would like to encourage the e.p.a. to address specifically how pumped hydroelectric storage will be

counted in michigan and other states so the consumers will have a success sess -- will have access. this is important for michigan. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. does anyone wish to claim the time in opposition? for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: i rise in opposition to the amendment but i'm not going to oppose the amendment. but i would like to speak to the amendment. the chair: without objection the gentleman is recognized. mr. whitfield: first i think i have five mr. whitfield: i think i have five minutes. i'd like to yield two minutes to mr. collins. the chair: mr. huizenga's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: i'd like to talk -- this is one of these things that's common sense. our people back home they don't understand this. dealing with some regulation on why we're trying to encourage this clean resource and this energy and pumping the

hydroelectric and not getting the credit for it. i had to deal with this on the core issues, on some -- where we're actually trying to do what's right for the environment, also trying to do what's right for sustainable energy. i'd like to say thanks for this amendment. i think we're working toward the right way. i think this sense of congress that says study this is the positive way to work to this. we look forward to using the energy sources we have in a productive way. i put my support to this and look for this amendment being approved. i want to thank joining my other two co-sponsors on this and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back and the time is controlled by the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the gentleman from michigan for raising the issue and the gentleman from georgia. it does illustrate some of the shortcomings of this proposed regulation because instead of encouraging clean renewable energy it in effect is discouraging it because they're not getting credit for it.

that's another problem. and for that reason we'd be happy to accept this amendment and include it as part of this bill. and thank you, all, very much for bringing it to our attention and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back. all time has now expired on this amendment. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan mr. huizenga. those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 114-177. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mcnerney: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 114-177 offered by mr. mcnerney of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman

from california, mr. mcnerney, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mcnerney: thank you, mr. chairman. first, i want to commend my colleague from kentucky on his efforts to protect consumers and ratepayers. i share that goal. however we also need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and we can protect customers consumers and reduce greenhouse gas emissions simultaneously. my amendment is intended as a compromise that is practical and would both protect consumers and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. i worked in the energy industry for two decades before coming to congress. i worked with the utility sector with the national laboratories, with other stakeholders. i know these issues. i've been on the ground, so i can appreciate the need for secure, reliable electric grid. i clearly understand the need for certainty and flexibility. that's one of the reasons i co-founded the bipartisan grid innovation caucus to help

address the pressing issues affecting our nation's electric grid. we're focusing on hardening the grid, protecting against cyberthreats responsiveness to extreme weather events and ensuring grid reliability and resiliency. h.r. 2042 will stop the e.p.a.'s proposed clean power plan and proposed ozone standard from taking effect. this would sharply limit our nation's ability to address climate change and the growing negative consequences it has on public health and our economy. to address this, my amendment will make two changes. first, it strikes section 2 of the bill which prevents any rule from taking place until all litigation is complete. that provision would add considerable uncertainty to the entire process and introduce significant precedent into the federal rulemaking process. if a delay is appropriate, let's introduce a simple delay. second, my amendment replaces the ability of states to opt

out of the plan with the requirement that the state public utility commissions or public service commissions as well as the appropriate electric reliability organization organization to issue reliability analysis on state or federal plan. in this bill's current plan, allowing states to opt out of the federal law would create a significant barrier to federal authority. the analysis that my amendment calls for must include affects on regional electric reliability and resource adequacy, operation of wholesale electric markets, transmission and distribution infrastructure and projected electricity demands. federal agencies have varied expertise emissions and not all are equipped to properly assess potential impacts that a rule may have on a particular industry. consequently, we need collaboration at all levels. in letter to the e.p.a. earlier

this year, ferc stated that working together with the e.p.a. the i.s.o.'s, the r.t.o.'s and the states will be essential as plans develop. ferc wrote, and i quote, the rate jurisdiction at times has affects on reliability issues. but reliability also depends on factors beyond the commission's jurisdiction such as the state's authority over local distribution and integrated resource planning. so i think it's an overstatement to claim that the clean power plan or the ozone standard would be the sole cause of impacts on rates over reliability. my amendment mirrors ferc's comments and ensures that an independent analysis is conducted by experts who deal with the grid on a daily basis because the e.p.a. is not an expert on grid reliability. if we want to add safeguards to add transparency, accountability, we need to ensure that states and regions have their voices heard. a practical way to accomplish that is by having the p.u.c.

and the i.s.o.'s submit a reliability report to the e.p.a. grid reliability is a bipartisan issue. if my amendment is adopted, it will help move the ball forward on this important issue. if not h.r. 2042 will just be another messaging bill that the president will almost certainly veto. i urge my opponent -- my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from kentucky seek time in opposition to the amendment? mr. whitfield: i did, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: once again, i'd like to thank mr. mcnerney for this amendment. certainly enjoy working with him on our committee. he certainly understands energy, and i must say that i have to respectfully disagree with him on this amendment and do seek recognition in opposition to it. his amendment would basically strike the substantive part of

our bill. as i've said in the beginning, this proposed regulation is so far outside the bounds of anything e.p.a. has ever attempted before because these plants are already regulated under section 112 and it specifically states that if regulated there they can't be regulated under 111-d. so the -- we're trying to respond to the states. e.p.a., we expect will give them 13 months to comply. there have been many lawsuits already filed. there are going to be more lawsuits filed because it is so costly so complex and they are under such time constraints. we simply want to delay the state implementation plans until the courts have made a decision and then his amendment would also eliminate the

governor's finding significantly adverse impact on electricity rates and reliability and simply say they got to come up with this state implementation plan by working with utility commissioners and nerc, which they will be doing anyway so if our bill is vetoed, that's where they're going to be anyway. so i would respectfully oppose this as defeating what we're trying to do and with great respect to mr. mcnerney i'd oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcnerney: thank you. well i certainly appreciate the chairman's thoughtful remarks and his concern about the effects of the clean power plan. my recommendation is that the -- if a delay is required, let's just introduce a specific

delay, a year, two years. introducing a bill that requires all the judicial matters to be settled before a plan can come into effect is just too vague. it doesn't make sense. i think it will do a lot more damage. and what we're asking for is that the states and the local authorities produce a reliability plan so that they'll understand the effects of the clean power plan. it's really a compromised position. if we want to move forward then let's adopt a compromise. if it we want to make a message bill let's move forward with the existing plan. and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. all time having expired on this amendment the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor will say aye. those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. mcnerney: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-177. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-177 offered by mr. newhouse of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 333, the gentleman from washington, mr. newhouse, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. newhouse: thank you very much, mr. speaker. and i'd like to thank the good gentleman from kentucky for his hard work on this bill. i rise today in support of my amendment to h.r. 2042, the ratepayer protection act of 2015, and urge my colleagues to support its adoption. this amendment, which i am proud to introduce with my

friend and colleague from the state of washington, congresswoman jamie herrera butler, would very simply direct -- jamie herrera beutler would simply recognize hydropower as a renewable energy source when issuing, implementing and enforcing any final rule to address carbon dioxide emissions from existing sources under the clean air act. it reduces the carbon emitted from the power sector by emission guidelines for each individual state. under the proposed rule, my home state of washington would be responsible for an unattainable 72% reduction in its carbon emissions by the year 2030. to put this into context, the state of iowa would be required to reduce carbon emissions by 16%. the state of kentucky, mr. chairman, by 18%. in the state of north dakota by

11%. i believe the proposed clean power plan would have devastating consequences for each and every state as well as for the country at large, which is why i'm proud to co-sponsor and support h.r. 2042. mr. speaker, the requirements placed on washington by this misguided rule are simply unachievable. it will hurt our families, our small businesses by raising the cost of electricity and will cost our economy billions of dollars just to comply. my amendment would seek to provide a reality check to e.p.a. and highlight the effect this regulation would have on such states such as washington, idaho, north dakota, which are blessed with abundant sources of hydropower, a nonemitting source. however, under the e.p.a.'s plan, hydropower is not treated an a renewable energy source, despite the fact that the obama administration has recently been touting the potential of hydropower as part of its all-of-the-above energy strategy. in fact mr. speaker last april secretary mow knees

discussed the -- moniz discussed this as a renewable in address to the national hydropower association. in his remarks, the secretary stated, we have to pick up the covers off of this hidden renewable that's right in front of our eyes and continues to have significant potential. yet, despite this public praise for hydropower, the e.p.a. decided to push a plan that explicitly nedgets hydropower in favor of other sources such as wind and solar. additionally, the e.p.a.'s plan use us the year 2020. this would also negatively impact my home state and others in the northwest. in 2012, oregon and washington experienced unusually high levels of rainfall, unfortunately, unlike this year, which led to a sharp increase in hydropower production and therefore we used less energy from fossil fuel sources. as a result, the proposed rule

seriously underestimates the amount of carbon used by my state which in reality is much higher than the e.p.a. 2012 baseline. because hydropower is not viewed as a renewable, we have to utilize impractical amounts of other renewable energy sources such as wind and solar to meet the e.p.a.'s goals. mr. speaker, the effects of this decision in those states with large amounts of existing hydropower, such as mine oregon, south dakota and idaho are significantly disadvantaged under the rule and will not get credit for the hydroelect trick generation and -- hydroelectric generation. my amendment would direct the e.p.a. to recognize hydropower as a renewable energy source. this would no way restrict the goals of h.r. 2042, which i fully support, nor would it negatively affect other

nonhydropower states. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support the newhouse-herrera beutler amendment and the underlying bill and yield back my time and urge the amendment's adoption. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back the balance of his time. does any member wish to seek time in opposition to the amendment? the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. ploin pallone thank you, mr. chairman. -- mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. the newhouse amendment seeks to legislatively adjust the e.p.a.'s clean power plan but the amendment does nothing to fix the problems in the rest of the bill which is actually designed to cripple the e.p.a.'s ability to curve emission fathers power plants and allows governors to thumb their noses at the clean air act. the newhouse amendment would make more sense it would make more sense if it were a comment submitted to the e.p.a. under the rule rather than gutting it together. the e.p.a. is considering this already.

it would have allowed new and incremental hydropower plants for compliance with the rule, however it did not include other plants. they received many comments about this topic. e.p.a. engaged in outreach to numerous stake holders about hydropower and other low and no impact sources of power. there are varying views on this topic and it should be left in my opinion to the rule making process to sort out the best approach. since e.p.a. is actively considering the comments received on hydropower, the amendment is not necessary and could be counterproductive. ultimately approval of the new house amendment would do nothing to change the fundamental flaws with the underlying bill and i

urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman has yielded back. all time having expired on this amendment, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 114-177 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number one offered by mr. pallone of new jersey, amendment number two offered by mr. rush of illinois amendment number four by mr. mcnerney of california. the chair will reduce to two minutes the min numb time for any eelect ton -- electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on

amendment number one printed in house report 114-177 by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one printed in house report 14-177 offered by mr. pallone of new jersey. 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 risen, a recorded vote is 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 representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the

yeas are 181, the nays are 245. the amendment is not adopt the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-177 by the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush on which further proceed wrgs postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-177 offered by mr. rush of illinois. 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 risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 182, the nays are 243, the amendment is not adopt the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in house report 114-177 offered by mr. mcnerney of california. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 114-177 offered by mr. mcnerney of kale. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 175. and the nays --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 177 and the nays are 250. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 2042 and pursuant to house resolution 333 i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman 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. 2042 and pursuant to house resolution 333 reports the bill back to the house to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker. the secretary: mr. speaker, i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate concurs in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 2146, cited

as the defending public safety employee retirement act. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members will remove their conversations from the house floor. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from alabama seek recognition? mrs. roby: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is alabama is recognized for one minute. mrs. roby: i remind you all that today is a very special day.

today is the seventh annual congressional women's softball game that we played for -- we play for the young survivors coalition. each of us is playing either in memory of or in honor of a survivor. and so no one in this room is untouched by cancer, and so i would just encourage all of my colleagues to join us tonight first pitch 7:00 watkins recreational facility center, and you can bring all of your staff and your interns and your friends and your family. it will be a great event. beat cancer and beat the press. i yield to the gentlelady from florida. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you. very briefly, mr. chairman and our colleagues. we are really so gratified to have been able to spend the last three months practicing every morning at 7:00 a.m. our team -- i just keep

repeating that over and over. maybe it will come true. our team is bipartisan. it's an opportunity every year for us to come together, bridge the divide, come together around a cause that is so meaningful and important for so many women all across america. i thank all of you every year for your support and for the turnout and for the love and affection that we have for one another that we are able to put aside our differences. as a breast cancer survivor myself diagnosed at 41, i just can't thank my colleagues enough for their time. i will close by saying that the member team are the defending champions, and tonight we will keep the trophy. go members, beat the press, beat cancer. please join us, 420 south street watkins recreational center. first pitch 7:00 p.m. it's a great game. come buy hotdogs.

and cheer us on. thank you so much and we yield back. mrs. roby: mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from alabama yields back the balance of her time. is there a separate vote demanded to any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units before requiring compliance with such rule, and to allow states to protect households and businesses from significant adverse effects on electricity ratepayers or reliability. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes have it.

for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: i ask for a roll call vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. without objection, this will be 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 247 and the nays are 180. this bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to the clause 2-a-1 of rule 9, i rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of privileges of the house. the form of my resolution is as follows. whereas on december 20, 1860, south carolina became the first state to secede from the union.

on january 9 1861, mississippi seceded from the union stateic from its declaration of immediate causes that our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery. the greatest material interests of the world. whereas on february 9 1861 the confederate states of america was formed with a group of 11 states as a purported sovereign nation and jefferson davis of mississippi, as its president. whereas on march 11, 1861, the confederate states of america adopted its own constitution. whereas on april 12, 1861, the confederate states of america fired shots upon fort sumter in

south carolina. whereas the united states did not recognize the confederate states of america as a sovereign nation, but rather as a rebel insurrecollection and took military battle to bring the rogue states back into the union. whereas april 9 1865, the surrender at appomattox courthouse in virginia effectively ending the civil war. whereas during the civil war, the confederate states of navy used the flag as symbols of the confederate armed forces. whereas since the end of the civil war, the navy jack, confederate battle flag and other imagery of the confederacy have been appropriated by groups as a symbol of hate, terror

intolerance and as supportive of the institution of slavery. whereas groups such as the ku kluxklan use imagery to frighten and cause harm to groups of people toward whom they have hateful intent, including african-americans, hispanic americans and jewish americans. whereas many state, federal political leaders including united states senator that had cochran roger wicker along with mississippi house speaker, and other state leaders have spoken out and advocated for the removal of the imagery of the confederacy on the mississippi state flag. whereas many members of congress including speaker john boehner support the removal of the confederate flag from the

grounds of the south carolina capital. whereas speaker john boehner released a statement on the issue saying i commend governor haley and other south carolina leaders in their effort to remove the confederate flag from state house grounds. in his second inaugural address 150 years ago and a month before his assassination, president abraham lincoln ended his speech with these powerful words which are as meaningful today as when they were spoken on the east front of the capital on march 4 1865 with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as god gives us to see the right. let us strive on to finish the work we're in, to bind up the nation's wound, to care for him

who shall have born the battle and for his widow and his orphan to do all which we may achieve, a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations. whereas the house of representatives has several state flags with imagery of the confederacy throughout its main structure and house office buildings. whereas eas a fact that symbols of the confederacy offend and insult many members of the general public who use the hallways of congress each day. whereas congress has never permanently recognized in its hall ways the symbol of sovereign nations with whom it has gone to war or rogue entities, such as the confederate states of america. whereas continuing to display a symbol of hatred oppression and

insurection that nearly tore our union apart and known to offend many groups throughout the country, would damage the reputation of this august institution and offend their dignity of the house of representatives and whereas this impairment of the dignity of the house and its members constitutes a violation under rule 9 of the rules of the house of representatives of the 114th congress. now therefore be it resolved that the speaker of the house of representatives shall remove any state flag containing any portion of the confederate battle flag other than a flag displayed by the member office from any area within the house wing of the capitol or any house

building and shall donate any such flag to the library of congress. the speaker pro tempore: under rule 9 a resolution offered from the floor by a member other than the majority leader or minority leader is a question of the privileges of the house has immediate precedents only at a time designated by the chair two legislative days. the form of the resolution noticed by the gentleman from mississippi will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. that determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise

and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. >> last week, cincinnati lost a hero in blue. a 27-year veteran of the cincinnati police department, officer sonny kim lived a life of service to his family, his department and his city. we mourn for a life cut short while serving in the line of duty. he is a loved police officer, husband and father. officer with 22 commendations. his lasting memory stands as a testament to the best of our community and society. mr. speaker police officers deal with people every day. usually people at their very worst and they do so selflessly and tirelessly. and we must never take that service for granted. we mourn with officer kim's

wife his son and his sisters and brothers that served along his side. rest in peace, officer kim. your good deeds will not be forgotten. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute ap revise and extend. without objection, the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for one minute. ms. duckworth: mr. speaker, recently, we lost william white to cancer but his contribution to his community and dedication to his friends and family will not be forgotten. his life is yet another example of the american dream realized. born in 1930 in brooklyn, he started selling printing presses in new york and he would join forces with his brother tom to

build new york city's most impressive restaurants. bill was also an important member of his community in point lookout, new york. he established the chamber of commerce and active member of the civic association. he was a true example that we can all find a way to serve and give something back to this great nation. he met his wife of almost 60 years, patricia, at a dance near west point in 1955. they traveled the world excited to explore culture and food on their necessary adventure. one child, bill has helped raise hundreds of millions of dollars for our nation's veterans of the i know bill was proud of his son. his legacy of service carried on by his son meant that our nation's heroes have received help. while this is a painful time for all who knew bill, we can be

proud of the life he lived and dedication to his family and country. thank you. and i yield back. . . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from arizona seek recognition? ms. mcsally: 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. mcsally: this week i introduced legislation along with my arizona colleagues to do just that. southern arizona already plays a vital role in our nation's trade partnership with mexico through its proximity to the border and key interstate systems. but more can be done to take part in these valuable assets. from mariposa port of entry must travel on congested city routes before traveling east. this impeds traffic and wastes valuable time and money.

a new highway would reduce this , help attract people to southern arizona and expand trade kecktift for the united states and -- connectivity for the united states and mexico. my bill would designate this proposed connection a high priority corridor on the national highway system and it has the support of the entire arizona delegation. its passage is in the best interest of southern arizona, our state and our country and i look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important project forward. and with that mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. in the last year we have seen far too many examples of conflict and violence in our communities. mr. foster: and while we cannot forget or ignore these

tragedies, it's important that we recognize the good that is happening throughout our country every day. i'd like to take a moment to share with you one example. while out on patrol, aurora, illinois, police officer david beamer stopped when he saw a group of teens on the street. some of the kids said they were alarmed, not knowing why he was stopping or what might happen next. they explained that they were all part of a dance group called simply destiny and were practicing in the alley because their dance studio had lost electrical power. and what happened next was something that we would all love to see much more of. officer beamer got out of his car and danced with the kids. the viral from this apparently -- the video from this apparently went viral highlighting exactly the kind of community engagement we'd love to see more of. this is what happens when

police officers, like those in my district, get to know their communities and communities get to know their police officers. it is only when we work together, police officers side by side with members of the community, that we make real and lasting progress. i thank you mr. speaker, and with a smile on my face i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 2146,en an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to allow federal law enforcement officers, firefighters and air traffic controllers to make penalty-free withdrawals from governmental plans after age 50, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota 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. paulsen: mr. speaker, i rise to congratulate the wayzata boys and girls track team for winning the state championship. after coming up just short the two years, the trojans were boosted by strong performances from distance runners connor and jared. and i would zata was led by the second place finish in the long jump, a number of strong relay teams. it absolutely was a complete team effort. these athletes spent practice after practice pushing themselves and each other to reach their personal best. in addition every single one of these student athletes still managed to meet and excell at their other school family and social obligations. mr. speaker, the family teachers, friends and entire community are very proud of these highway champs. congratulations, coach aaron, and the wayzata girls track and field team.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? veast mr. speaker i ask unanimous consent -- mr. poe: 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. poe: isis is holding competitions at mosques to celebrate ramadan. here's the challenge. memorize the koran. the prize, get this, a young female sex slave. as a father and a grandfather i'm repulsed by the fact that young women, really just kids, are being handed out like door prizes at a koran contest. second and third places apparently receive the same reward kidnapped young teenage girls. this competition is advertised on fliers and marketed to young males. the arrogance, barbarity of this terrorist enterprise has no limit. isis pillages rapes their way across the middle east. they brazenly broadcast

decapitations, slowly drown people in cages and burn captors alive. isis is the enemy of all states. its terrorist reign of religious genocide threatens all humanity and a path of murderous anarchy. the world must ban together to destroy these radical jihadists. justice demands they be held accountable for their crimes against all people around the world, including little girls and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida 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. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize florida international university on the celebration of their 50th anniversary earlier this week on the 22nd of june. mr. curbelo: this great accomplishment gives all floridians an opportunity to recognize this special institution and all who have

contributed to f.i.u. success throughout the years should be proud. f.i.u. is located in florida's 26th congressional district. where over 17000 of my constituents are enrolled as students and additional 2,400 graduated last year. in my time serving south florida in congress i have witnessed this university's passion for helping students seek higher education to better themselves while giving back to our community. mr. speaker, south florida is a place where people from all over the world come seeking opportunity and success. many find it at f.i.u. on the occasion of f.i.u.'s 50th anniversary, i salute all those who have dedicated their careers to improving the lives of scholars. i know many proud graduates who today are leaders in our community. once again, congratulations. i know that the next 50 years will bring even greater success and achievement.

go, panthers. and with that mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, -- the chair lays before the house the following request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. payne of new jersey for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, the gentlewoman from new jersey mrs. watson coleman, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mrs. watson coleman: mr. speaker i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material

on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. watson coleman: thank you, mr. speaker. as we do almost every week, my colleagues and i are here on the floor this evening to urge the people's house to take up the issues that matter to the people. this week we're still reeling from the tragedy in south carolina, and so my colleagues and i are urging members on both sides of the aisle to take a look at an issue we've consistently and painfully avoided for years. what we're doing to prevent gun violence. and with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to now yield to the gentlelady from michigan mrs. lawrence. mrs. lawrence: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of the second amendment and the americans' right for reasonable, responsible gun ownership. but it is time for us to -- in america to admit we have a problem.

when i see more than two dozen people shot in one weekend in my hometown of detroit, when i see the face of a deranged and hate-fueled young man, a man who should have never had a gun but was able to destroy the lives of nine amazing people who welcomed him into their church in south carolina i know it's time for america to embrace commonsense gun control. in the span of about 24 hours, 27 -- 27 people were shot and three were killed in detroit, michigan. it's a city that i represent along with my esteemed colleague, congressman john conyers. the f.b.i. and the detroit police department confirmed that in the city of detroit,

overall crime is down. yet, gun deaths are on the rise. 90% of the americans who were polled want universal background checks for gun purchases. 90%. so what are we waiting for? there's not a member of congress who has not been touched by gun violence. and that includes one of our own, a colleague that is highly respected gabby giffords. how many more deaths must families and communities endure? how many more funerals must we attend? how many more children must be orphaned? how many more parents must suffer the unspeakable heartbreak of losing a child? there's no question that we

must act and we must act now. how many times must we watch on national news what gun violence uncontrolled gun violence can do to our country? the action that focuses on three principles. establish universal background checks. eliminate the gun show loopholes that allows a person to walk in, pick up a gun and walk out the door. and enforce our existing gun control laws. we have seen countries all over this globe who are not experiencing the gun violence that we are here in america, and their citizens have the right to own guns. it's time for us to awaken from a sleep of the past and address this issue and address it now.

thank you. i yield back. mrs. watson coleman: i thank the gentlelady for taking the time to join us and sharing that important message, and i join her in her sentiments. i now like to yield to the gentlelady from illinois, ms. kelly. ms. kelly: i thank the gentlelady from new jersey. mr. speaker, i thank my colleague for yielding as we continue this important conversation. every day in america we navigate the threat of gun violence, from metal detectors in public buildings to shooting safety drills in schools and movie theaters, guns affect how we live and whether we live at all. yet, piercing the peace of prayer at emanuel a.m.e. church in charleston, it stired a sickening sadness within us. it was a searing reminder that there is no corner of our country that offers a haven for us when guns ends up in the wrong hands.

we're here today because of charleston, to remember the lives of the nine souls it's lost. it's a ritual we have on automatic repeat again and again, massacre after massacre as an end run around real gun reform. we have the conviction covered. what we have lacked in congress is the courage to do the right thing. . they are victims as the 30,000 americans who die each year from gun violence. for the first time, gun deaths are to be the leading cause of death. we are losing a generation of young americans to guns. the future of our nation is quite literally at stake. all across america children are growing up in fear. kids play tag indoors. mother second guessing letting their children walk to school. some studies say exposure to repeated shootings is akin to

guns in war zone. we are better than this. and in the keller report on gun violence in america, i outlined a number of effective strategies to stop the bloodshed. i implore my colleagues to listen to your conscience and the conscience of the country you represent and work with me to charter a new course for a safer america. there is overwhelming public support for gun reform. responsible gun owners support responsible gun laws. we can strike a sensible balance that protects our second amendment rights while ensuring the basic human right of all americans to live free from gun violence. how many more massacres must we endure and innocent people be murdered on our watch. the time has come for congress to have the courage and honor

through action by expanding background checks to keep these depraved killers getting their hands on guns and the other gun safety laws that we have talked about in the past. we have the power to stop the next charleston, newtown aurora so no other city balks synonomous to gun tragedy. we need to stop tragedies. congress must put saving american lives at the top of our ajeopardya. we owe it to the charleston nine, as we owe it to a generation of young people at risk meeting a similar fate. i yield back. and i thank the gentlelady from new jersey. mrs. watson coleman: i thank the gentlelady with her remarks and i associate myself. my heart is heavy right now. i never thought i would be in washington representing the people of the 12th district in the state of new jersey, but never in my wildest imagination

that i would be on the floor of this body mourning the nine americans murdered for the color of their skin, at a church that was part of a fight for our civil rights. and what has become a routine order of events, we watch horrified as the helicopter circles, a church, a movie theater, a college campus or a school. a breaking news headline is across the screen keeping track of the developing details. the next day, we debate the mental stability or motive of the shooter. we asked where they purchased the weapon. we ponder the merits of changing our nation's laws to keep more americans safe and then inevitably, we do nothing and the cycle repeats. the rate of mass shootings has federally risen since 2000. president obama has addressed the nation for at least a dozen

of these incidents since the beginning of his first term. we are the only developed nation in the world that has this problem, and we need to wake up and ask ourselves why. we are told more guns will keep us safe. we are told that requiring background checks for every purchase with no exceptions is too intrusive. we are told our constitutional right to bear arms should cover every weapon from a simple handgun to a machine gun, whose only purpose is to cause massive harm. mr. speaker, we are here tonight because we know these statements are at the very least misleading and more likely outright falsehoods. we stand together on behalf of millions of americans who agree that the shooting in tucson, arizona, that wounded one of our own should have been our last. that the lives lost in aurora, colorado, should have been the

last. the babies we lost in newtown, connecticut, should have moved us to change the ease with which we allow access to firearms. we are asking our colleagues on both sides of the whether they are willing to make this new edition to a painful list the last. i hope to close our remarks this evening that we will see the need for change. it is now my pleasure to yield to a fellow freshman, who has introduced the legislation today that would keep firearms out of the hands of criminals the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer. mr. beyer: gun homicide rate is 20 times higher in the united states. how long is enough is enough. keeping the guns from criminals act. commonsense legislation that

will close the loophole in current federal law that allow straw purchasers and gun traffickers to sell firearms to restricted purchasers with little or no risk of being prosecuted. while federal law prohibits the sale of a gun to a felon or other persons not deemed eligible to possess a firearm the standard to prosecute these people, the law enforcement is rarely able to bring charges. only if the prosecutor can prove the seller knew the buyer was prohibited from purchasing a gun, are they able to successfully prosecute. so unenforceable is the current statute, that on average 75 such prosecutions occur every year. my bill would make it easier to prosecute these bad actors by making the sale of a firearm a strict liability. it's a crime and it is on the seller to know if the buyer is in the prohibited class of customers.

no longer would a gun trafficker or irresponsible gun seller be able to claim they didn't know that a purchaser was a criminal or had a restraining order against them or was on a terrorist watch list. no longer would we would be tying the hands of law enforcement in preventing them from enforcing laws to protect our children. no longer would a prosecutor have to prove the intention or knowledge to prove wrongdoing under current law. mr. speaker, no doubt, one of the arguments against this bill will be a complaint that a background check places a burden upon the seller, but consider this. the seller and prospective buyer need to go one of the f.f.l., who provide a private property transfer with a background check for only about $30 and consider there are 130,000 f.f.l.'s in the united states, that is nine times as many mcdonald's that there are.

the national rifle association agrees that we have the responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals. this legislation is a step in that direction. and i encourage my colleagues to please support it. i yield back. mrs. watson coleman: i thank the gentleman for those remarks. mr. speaker last wednesday dill andn roof stole the lives of nine innocent americans and we have lost track of the real problems. we keep talking about a flag a flag that is the symbol of one of the most glaring problems. i don't want to get too far off track but i want to make something perfectly clear. symbols may matter but don't matter as much as the actions of police who consistently treat black men and women with disregard. symbols don't matter as much as the mandatory sentencing law which hundreds of thousands of

black men. symbols don't matter as much as the predatory loan who put them under water. and they are not held accountable. along side those calls to take down the flag, i would appreciate calls to acknowledge that persistent racism is not the only problem here. pervasive and unnecessary gun violence is one of our nation's most pronounced laws. mr. speaker, let me say this. i fully support the permanent removal of the confederate flag. it represents one of the darkest stains on our nation's history. it represents faceless hate, disrespect for the civil rights and freedom for this nation was founded upon and enduring mistreatment in communities of color. if we are about the business of ending discrimination once and for all we need to enact

policies that will counteract everything that that flag benefits. and ensure that our communities are qualified for the jobs of the future and education to let our students succeed and affordable housing that exists outside of the urban centers and offer folks the jobs they need to get on their feet and to climb to the middle class. mr. speaker i would like to yield to the gentlelady from texas ms. sheila jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentlelady from new jersey for her consistent leadership and particularly her friendship her passion for her district and her commitment to policies that will lift all of us together as americans. this is the first time, mr. speaker, that i have had the opportunity to speak on the

floor of the house since the moving and horrific tragedy that occurred in charleston, south carolina. to be able to first publicly express my deepest sympathy to the families that now mourn. i think this may be the longest period of time that i have had the chance to speak. my recollection may be that i offered sympathies last week, but to take a moment to explore the heinousness of the acts of the perpetrator, who knocked on a door that was not closed into a sanctuary that did not reject him. walked down some stairs to historic basement that reminds

all of us our church basements across the nation, being houses of worship and particularly african-american churches or have sabbath or sunday school in areas that are in basements particularly along the northern and eastern coasts. we know that sunday and sabbath schools are particular to many of our denominations in the faith. and every understands that weekly bible study, that through the traditions of our lives, we have seen our families, grandmothers grandfathers and aunts and uncles and those of us who joined in bible study. a bible study is a phenomenon of the american church, the prot test ant church where people gather to study the word. i said in a memorial service in

houston, a time of joy a time of pain, a time of explaining oneself and time of redemption and you feel good when you join with your fellow travelers. and in a weary weak mid-week you come and restore yourself. i could imagine that during the time that this evil doer was there and there were questions asking about the scripture or joyful argumentative interpretation where bible study give their participation or interpretation. i know this because if you have gone you know what bible study is all about. and in the course of that the evil doer, filled with a sickness and i hate to say cancer. cancer is something that people do not voluntarily speak but we

know that cancer can eat at a body and kill someone. so the cancer is racism that this individual possessed and internalized and duped himself and took the medicine and continued to fill himself with a deadly concoction that was going to do nothing but killed him. but before it killed him, he felt compelled someone else. the money he received for the the celebrating of his 21 year, very young years i guess what breaks my heart is how in those young years, he could become so hateful. for as i said, he came into a place that did not reject him. and went down into the stairs where people were rejoicing and after sitting next to reverend

dr. senator pinckney and took out a gun and killed those mothers fathers grandfathers, grandmothers, sons and daughters without a pain. . he took a gun that none of us would raise on this floor, or none of us would raise on any traveler, forlorn that would come into our place of worship, a mosque, a catholic parish or sin gog a hindu temple -- synagogue a hindu semple or any form of protestant church big or small. houston prides itself on having many many denominations, in fact we are now in the middle of ramadan, and many many

places of worshipism -- of worship. i venture to say that i have been to all in the city of houston and each place in their own faith have welcomed people in we only see the evildoers, people who blow up mosques and synagogues and churches. this person didn't blow it up a distance away. they methodically did this. and a mother had to watch a son try to to -- try to rescue those, protect them heroes shown, stories have not all been told but we know that there were heroes in the midst. in fact, they all are heroes. so i come for two reasons and i thank the gentlelady for yielding to me, to indicate that much of what we heard here is

true. that for us to do honor to those who died in this disastrous massacre, murderers blood flowing from the church, that it will have to be our action. it will have to be what we do about education and criminal justice reform. i almost want to stop myself for the broken recordness of this we only do it in unity. we will only do it after we put aside contentious votes, we begin to say what will heal america? we will not heal, and we've said this before, on the issue of cancerous racism, unless we admit that it exists. many of us will present to this congress a resolution that calls upon the recognition that there are some symbols of hate that we

cannot deny. we will frame it in america's unity. as has been noted already earlier today that governors and state representatives and others of good thought, mitt romney for example joined with president obama's tweet that it is the right thing to do. to take that rebel symbol that has been used to run onto the plantations of yesteryear individuals clothed in white clothing prorkviding fear, intimidation and evil doing. certainly we know that the threats that dr. king received in his life or medger evers in his life murdered on his front porch, were all circled around people, not talking about slavery, but desegregation and their on stoigs desegfwation and their support of upholding segregation.

this sim poll of -- symbol of evil is not far from our life in 2015. many of us lived through it and saw the disaster of such. many of us saw the killing of civil rights workers. bound in hatred and not wanting to change what did not unify america but divided america. so the guns that i have addressed now for the period of time that i have been, i passed one of the few gun ordinances in a law making body, a city council which most people don't realize that some city governments give law making, legislative authority to their elected representatives. houston a noncity manager government, does that. and i remember that ordinance amongst the mayor and city council persons, packed the chamber. people with revolutionary outfits, gun enthusiasts, n.r.a. all opposing a simple

gun ordinance that said that if a parent allowed a child to get a gun in their hand and a horrific incident happened a shooting, the child shot themselves the parent would be held responsible. some semblance of not taking your gun away but trying to instill responsibility with guns. and when we talk about this on the floor of the house, why all of a sudden, mr. speaker becomes that we're against the second amendment and the national rifle association and this is going to be the undermining of this powerful organization, if we even utter the words gun responsibility. why? why in newtown, i thought i had seen enough, heard enough, when 20 little babies in a corner, no less six adults, murdered in a murderous fashion from someone who absolutely did not deserve a

gun for whatever reason as they took their own life. or someone who now stands in trial in colorado. who decided that a night out with a dad and his daughter in a theater, something that americans know is part of our american culture, we're just movie goers, we make the movie industry, and we either in the old days, in those outdoor, drive 46 in -- drive-ins that many remember were some of the best times with your family and thank god they didn't cost a lot. or the sophisticated, high tech theaters of today. it's still the same. dads and little girls are going to theaters together and this criminally minded person, evildoer decided to kill 12. or to our very distinguished colleague congresswoman from arizona, whose maintained the dignity of her office, shot down

in the street by a gun killed a federal judge and many others a 9-year-old girl whose memory, her staff, whose memories we continue to mourn. so mr. speaker, i would offer to say that i join with congresswoman watson-coleman to indicate that the issue of gun responsibility legislation is not even overdue. we are crying out for rereef. -- relief. the violence that is used with hand gunns and ak-47's and automatic weapons is unspeakable. we need to close the gun show loophole that allows people to go and to get guns at gun shows. the name of my good friend carolyn mccarthy and john dingell they worked together and

had comp midses -- compromises and we could not get it on the floor of the house. we need to go further. we need to be able to ensure that where this evildoer bought the gun his exposure to the criminal justice system should have stopped him from getting a gun until he was completely vetted. they'll say he would have stolen one or got one out of the back of a pickup truck but maybe he wouldn't have been able to go on that fateful night, down those stairs, through that open door, to kill those blessed souls studying the word of the lord. so it is a challenge now. i know those of us in the congressional progressive caucus are americans. i know that those adhere to tea party philosophy are americans. to our various conservative caucuses in the conference, our republican friends, to the varets caucus that are in the

democratic caucus, all americans. all felt the pain of the murderous act. in fact, it is almost like we're living in a cocoon. it's not over yet, as these families bury their loved ones. but i think it is upon us, an onerous responsibility, to confront this whole question of racism as the president has charged us to do, not do it with another round of conversation but confronting the fact that we can begin by removing symbols and doing something proactively on changing lives. and then to take on this gun responsibility question to call the n.r.a. to a table of reconciliation, master a legislative agenda and an omnibus initiative, that doesn't have anyone hiding under tables,

that there will be no indictment of whether you're for or against, but we hope the majority would move this legislation forward to change the way young people, people who are on the edge, people who shouldn't have guns get guns and kill people. it's time for this congress to pass the legislation. it is time for the president to be able to sign the legislation. let me thank the gentlelady from new jersey for her general yube courtesy. -- genuine curtsy extended this evening to allow me to -- courtesy extended this evening to allow me to both mourn and condemn racism that has been the plight of many of our people in this country and to as well remind us that we are derelict in our duty if we do not pass real, serious gun responsibility legislation. i yield back to the gentlelady.

mrs. watson coleman: thank you. i thank the gentlelady from texas. she's also been -- always been a source of information and history and always tide our history into our current situation and has always been someone who motivated us to think sincerely about the issues of the day and how we can become part of the solution. mr. speaker, in closing, i just want to reiterate that i associate myself with every recommendation that this gentlelady has put forth here. i do indeed believe that we need some sensible gun control legislation. i've even introduced legislation to make it more difficult to secure ammunition. i do think that is a very important component of creating a safer environment in this country for all citizens. so i think also that we need to take a serious look at what this type of terrorism this domestic terrorism is doing and whether or not we are devoting the type of resources that are necessary

to ensure that our people are safe as they can be. i think that we are very involved and very concerned and very proactive in looking at potential lone wolves jihaddists, isis recruitment activity and things of that ilk. but i question whether or not we are sufficiently engaging in oversight and intervention and creating those to look at the sites that generate the willingness of people such as mr. -- in inspiring him to do what he did. i hope that we are able to hold hearings on the domestic terrorism and i hope that we are willing to look at policies and procedures in creating jobs and

with that, mr. speaker, i thank you for your indulgence and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015 the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. rohrabacher: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to draw the attention of my colleagues and yes the american people, to a legislative threat to the safety and well being of the american people. we dodged a bullet in the last session of congress and this very same issue that i will be discussing this -- on this very same issue i'll be discussing this evening. but today again we are in serious jeopardy to having an important right of the american people neutered from them taken away from them by a power play here in washington, d.c. being conducted by multinational

corporations who have done everything they can to impact on this system while the american people rest not knowing that there's an attempted move against their constitutional rights. alerted by aggressive yet unsuccessful attempt to stop this rigorous and ran considerous -- and rancorous legislation in the house, the senate was inundated in a similar bill that was supposed to be reform. it was very similar to the one i will be discussing today. so much opposition to that bill there was so much opposition to that bill in the senate that they simply refused to bring it up to the floor for consideration. the bill had already passed the house. as i say, today a similar bill

now is making its way through the house and will be on the floor and it is a great threat to the freedom and security and well being of the american people. and what was that issue that was rammed through the house and once it was exposed that the senate turned it back? well, it has been an ongoing fight over 20 years a classic case of crony capitalism that plagues our country. the big guys are trying to diminish the rights of the little guys in order to make more money. surprise, surprise. in this case however, what we're talking about, they will not only make more money and take that from the little guys, but it will undermine america's prosperity and security in the long run. i am certainly not opposed to the profit motive. but first and foremost we need to ensure that powerful forces don't change the economic rules in order to enrich themselves.

unseen by what most americans who are not paying attention but are paying attention to the important things in their lives, their children, their families, their job, their schools their churches, but they have been basically unaware that there's an attempt by megamultinational corporations to undermine and yes, destroy a constitutional right of our citizens. this in order to fill their pockets at the expense of the american people who don't really understand or even know this power play is going on. i am referring to an attack on the fundamental constitutional right of the american people to own what they have created. this is a right that's been written into the law at the constitutional convention. it is in our constitution and that is under attack in a

clandestine legal maneuver that would neuter america's inventors, the protection that they were granted by the constitution and permit powerful multinational corporations to steal what is rightfully -- what rightfully belongs to american inventors, as granted to them as a right in the constitution. and thus ordinary americans of course are not as able to get their voices heard at times here in congress and big corporations are. they have whole stables of lobbyists. tonight we need to mobilize the american people and have them make sure that they contact their member of congress and i will alert my fellow colleagues to make sure that they pay attention to what's happening in this piece of legislation that is now being rammed through congress. but it isn't just about, of course, dispossessing. this issue isn't just

dispossessing individual inventors. it is a power grab that if they are successful in undermining the constitutional rights of inventors to own, for a given period of time, what they have created this change in our constitutional law will undermine the prosperity that we have enjoyed as americans. the less than forthful attack on our patent system will undermine the economic well-being of our working people who depend on the united states to be technologically superior in order to so that they can -- in order so that they can outcompete other people in other countries, who come from poorer societies, who work just as hard but don't have the technological advantage that we americans have. the american working people have always had the advantage that they could be more productive because our country permitted the technological development of the means of production that made our workers the most productive in

the world. the people are working hard all over the world. but people of the united states who couple that with freedom and coupled that with technology, and it uplifted everyone. our founding fathers believed that technology and freedom and, yes, profit motive was the formula that would uplift human kind. they wrote into our constitution, a guarantee of the property rights of inventors and authors. it is the only place in the body of our constitution where the word right is used. and i quote, in article 1 section 8 clause 8 of the constitution of the united states, the congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to the authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective rights -- writings and discoveries. this provision has served america well.

it has led to a general prosperity and national security and it has permitted average people in our country to live decent lives to have good jobs, but instead now we are putting all of that at risk because some multinational corporations want to steal the technology that's been developed by our little guys, our small inventors, and our small and independent inventors are where the new ideas come from. these big meganational corporations have huge bureaucracies that are not the source of the great discoveries that we have had over the last two centuries. americans work hard, as i say, but so do all the other people in the world. and it's technology that makes the difference. our technology has multiplied the results of that hard work. and, yes, that is the secret of our success. technology and freedom. and that was put in place not

just because we talk about it, but because we wrote that into our law. our basic fundamental law. the constitution and we have developed from that moment the strongest patent system in the world and that has made all the difference. benjamin franklin, thomas jefferson, these were men who believed in technology believed in liberty and freedom and believed that we could uplift every human being, not just the elite in our society. and thus they made sure that in our constitution we had this provision and that we set our course toward uplifting all people through technology and hard work and freedom and the profit motive. yet today multinational corporations run by americans and maybe some multinational corporations that just have americans working for them want

to diminish the patent protection our founding fathers put in place. want to diminish the patent protection that has served us so well and over the years we fought and turned back several efforts to weaken the patent system. the american people are unaware of this. they're unaware that for the last 20 years there's been this attempt, and they call it harmanizing our patent system with the rest of the world -- harmonizing our patent system with the rest of the world. how does the rest of the world respect the rights of the little guy? they don't. in fact, our patent system has said that if a man applies for a patent, a man or woman that after 18 months overseas after 1 months, anybody who applies -- 18 months, anybody who applies for a patent over there

has a different application than our patents. a patenter in the united states knows his patent information will be totally confidential until the moment he's issued the patent. when that patent is issued, then it can be published. but he then has the legal power to protect his patent rights for a given period of time and traditionally that has been 17 years of guaranteed protection. that's not the way the rest of the world works. the rest of the world wants 1 month after 18 month -- 18 months, they publish it for the whole world to see even if the patent has not been issued. and thus any inventor in that case everything that he or she has invented is now -- all of the research is now made available to one's competitors. and that destroys incentive and in fact that was the goal 20 years ago that marcy capture and myself -- kaptur and myself

we were able to stop that ro vision being put into law -- that provision being put into law. what they were trying to do was that every american today, think about it, every american inventor today, anybody who didn't get their patent within 18 months, it would be published to the world and it would be -- we'd have massive stealing of our technology and undercutting our technological superiority. i might add the other thing they were trying to accomplish was they said, and overseas they don't have this guarantee, and that is, we had -- if you apply for a patent, if it takes you 10 years to get your patent, you still have 17 years of guaranteed patent protection from the time it's issued. overseas after 18 months you no longer -- it starts working against you -- actually it's after 20 -- they start the clock ticking at 20 years.

when you file. so if you file for a patent and it takes you let's say 10 years to get your patent, in the united states you'd have 17 years of protection. overseas you end up with 10, sometimes five years of protection. we had the strongest system in the world and it's worked for us and now we have people over those last 20 years who have tried everything they could to undermine it. and we won those early fights against the two provisions i just described. well, after a few years of this of course marcy kaptur and myself and a strong coalition managed to thwart those efforts. but today we see another effort to try to undermine and diminish the patent protection that we have been fighting to preserve for these last 20 years. 3 1/2 years ago the house

passed the american invents act , which, we were warned, fundamentally diminished the patent system, weakening its protection for ordinary citizens. the negative impact of that bill, and that's just 3 1/2 years ago, the negative impact is overwhelming. we changed for example, the fundamental idea in that bill, one of the ideas that were changed, from our country's founding, it was always the first person to invent something and can prove they invented it, they will get the patent. well, they changed it to the first not to invent, they changed that to the first one to file for a patent is going to get the patent. so smaller and more independent inventors who can't afford to go over and over again, every new twist of their invention get a separate patent for, these small inventors have been

facing major corporations that then immediately will go in and file for patent after patent after patent because they can afford it. so what they have done now is these corporations are flooding the patent office with applications and of course there are no further -- they're not -- there are not more people working in the patent office, thus they are being dramatically -- they're feeling a dramatic reduction in their ability to get the job done because they are being flooded with patents because we -- patent applications, we changed the basic rules of the game and it has worked against technological development in our country. the onslaught, as i said, of course, is aimed at neutering the rights of the small inventor and that was -- we have barely turned back this

latest attempt which last year , we passed through the house and went to the senate but when the senators of course got a message from their own colleges and universities as to what this would do, and the damage that it would do to their university we were able to stop it and stop the effort in the senate and now we have the american innovation act that has been presented here. this is yet the most recent onslaught over a 20-year battle of trying to protect the interests of the little guy. enough to now we have the american inowe -- now we have the american innovation act. let me just suggest that these people over the years who have come to try these big megacorporations that have stepped up with these proposals that would diminish the right of the small inventor, didn't

say we're trying to diminish the rights of the small inventor. that's not what was being sold to the members of congress. instead what was sold in the first onslaught 20 years ago, there was the submarine patenter. the submarine patenter. that's why we have to eliminate the ability for people to have a patent application that is secret until it's granted. that's why at 20 years from filing, you don't have any more patent protection. well, that was a derogatory term that was used to confuse the public in order to try to secure their goal of diminishing the right of all inventors. especially small inventors. they are insisting of course, now that there is another threat and that we should pay attention to this other threat that has emerged, that should

motivate us to again diminish the rights of american inventors to protect their own patent, because supposedly patents -- patent law is being abused by the so-called patent trolls. now, what are patent trolls? let me note that we all have -- understand that there are frivolous lawsuits that take place throughout the american system. . we have a system of of -- of justice, you can sue a person if someone has damaged you. yet there are frivolous lawsuits, lawyers will do that. this is something we have to deal with, judges need to be stronger in that case. but they exist, and yes there are frivolous lawsuits that are presented by lawyers over patent right infringement. and sometimes these frivolous lawsuits, many times, are just based on phony claims that they

claim they have the right and patent to this and they sue some businessman hoping he'll just pay off. that is indeed a problem. it's not a major problem. in the sense that it's a minor part of all of the litigation that goes on. almost all the patent lit gailings that goes on is -- and most of the lawyers who are involved in this who are called patent trolls, are involved with legitimate claims against people who have infringed on the patent rights of especially small inventors. they are basically coming -- getting involved with the small inventor who cannot and does not have the resources to basically defend his patent against some large mega multinational corporation. but of course big corporations would have us believe that what we're really talking about are

frivolous lawsuits against them. no there are many many positive lawsuits that are totally justified and the vast majority of all lawsuits that come into play against these major corporations are based on a legitimate claim by someone who owns a legitimate patent who these big companies have just tried to rip off system of what they're trying to do now is what? they're trying to make it more difficult for those little guys even with any type of help from what they call a patent troll to be able to actually bring their case of infringement against large corporations. what this is basically saying is we've got to change our justice system. we've got to change the rules of the game for every lawsuit because some people are -- have been ma lip -- manipulating the law and having frivolous

lawsuits. i don't think that that's what we want in america. we don't want to take away the right, the jelejit mat rights to go and defend yourselves in court because some people used the courts in a frivolous or many niplative manner. the small inventor doesn't have the resources for example, to enforce his or her own patent and if they've been granted this patent legitimately by the federal government, that they own this technology that they developed, then there's nothing wrong with the fact that someone could come along and help them enforce it when a mega multinational corporation is basically stealing their rights and i consulted with a number of outside individual inventors and groups, they have affirmed to me that the legislation now being proposed in h.r. 9, the bill that was already passed through the judiciary committee that

that bill disadvantaged the little guy against deep pocketed corporations. and in fact, every provision in the name of stopping patent trolls is a provision that would undermine the efforts of people who own legitimate patents and have legitimate patent claims and undermine their ability to enforce those claims. so the -- so basically we're saying, and what's being said about patent trolls yes there are frivolous lawsuits and the trolls sometimes are involved with frivolous lawsuits but by and large that does not mean that the overwhelming number of lawsuits are legitimate and they should have every right to call on someone to help them in their effort to basically defend their patent rights. proponents of this legislation are covering the facts that what we really have here is a bill on

h.r. 9 that makes it easier for big corporations to steal the technology secrets of the little guys. they would have us believe that all lawsuits are frivolous and the frivolous lawsuits are throughout our system and instead of focusing just on frivolous lawsuits, they want us to have an overall diminishing of the rights to our inventors to enforce their patents and make it more difficult for them to do so. so tonight, i draw the attention of the american people to h.r. 9. the innovation act. it was introduced by chairman goodlatte and was passed through just a week ago or two weeks ago in the judiciary committee. and last congress, the house judiciary committee held hearings on this bill and witnesses at that hearing included director campos and others and that was when we were

discussing think america invents act and people said let's go slow on this. why are we trying to push this through in such a hurried manner? they're trying to push it through in a hurried manner because once people understand the implications of diminishing the right of people to protect their patents, they are going to find it has dramatic changes to the american way of life. for example, our universities now have discovered that if indeed h.r. 9 passes, that it will have a huge impact on their -- on the viability of their own scientific research and their own patents that they -- that are owned by these various universities and it will diminish the value of patents across the board if we say that the -- that it's going to be more difficult to fight infringers, more costly for someone to fight someone who is

infringing on that patent. so according to sponsors of h.r. 9, this is, as i say an attempt to control the trolls but in fact it's going to control the universities. it's going to control other companies other than these big companies that are multinational companies. they're mainly in the electronics industry. but those people may want to take away somebody's patent rights and let them sue but that's not true in many other -- you've got pharmaceuticals and biotech and many other industries that will be impacted in a horrible way because of h.r. 9. what we need to do is make sure that the american people speak to their member of congress and talk to them about, we do not want to make it more difficult for people who have developed new technologies to defend their

technologies against infringers. we don't want to make it more difficult for people who are the innovators to innovate, to come up with new ideas, to basically make sure that america is on the cutting edge and leading the way and if we've harr monoized with the rest of the world, as has been their goal for a long time and i might add, one of the things we have to be very concerned about when we look at the trade bill which we shoved through congress is whether or not it will contain a provision that i helped defeat 20 years ago which i just mentioned that will make sure that our patent applications are published after 18 months. now i've been told that that is in the trade bill and there's been all sorts of denials and some people coming to me whispering, yes, it is in there.

we know, we've been operating under secrecy here so it's impossible for me to tell the public, i know absolutely because i read it. had i read about this in that bill, i wouldn't be here talking about it. but that's another one of those things you have to be very careful. what are you going to pass in this trade bill. it might be exactly what i'm talking about which is a diminishing of the patent rights of the little guy and who is pushing that? mega corporations, multinational corporations, the same guys who are mushing this trade bill on us and not letting us even know what's in the trade bill, which we're supposed to give up our right for an up or down vote not even knowing what's in that bill system of what we need to do is make sure we go through all of those items in the -- in this bill, h.r. 9, and people have to unction that every one of those provisions in this bill are aimed at making it more difficult for the small inventor

to go up against a major corporation who is infringing on that inventor's creation. so how come we've got bills now that we can be bringing to the floor and that we have, and that they're aimed at helping the big guys -- big guy steal from the little guy? this is not what america is all about. this isn't what our founding fathers had in mind, the resulting, the results of h.r. 9 will be increased patent infringement, meaning the little guys will have more and more of what they are developing stolen from them, and thus there will be less incentive for the geniuses in our society to use that genius to create the new technologies that keep us safe. safe. it's our technological edge that keeps us safe. that makes us prosperous. we can't be prosperous unless we are the innovators, unless we're

the guys with the new ideas rather than the people who are just copying other people. and our working people will not have a decent standard of living. this will reduce the legal remedies for those who have been infringed upon. it will reduce investment in small businesses that are aimed at technological development. why would anybody want to invest with a small inventor or small company that's in developing technology if you're going to make it more and more difficult for that investor to get that money back if someone is stealing that technology? and of course it will do irreparable damage to our research universities, our inventors, our entrepreneurs, our economy, and our nation. every part of the so-called reform is detrimental to the patent owners. especially damaging individual innovators, will best tably damaged.

every provision bolsters the patent thieve the infringers at the expense of the legal owners. all this covered by the idea, we've got to get at the trolls. i'd like to share with you and with my colleagues just the story of exactly how that word troll came up. there's a head of a major corporation who changed his mind on this bill. years ago was part of the clique pushing this sort of diminishing of patent rights and he told me that he sat in a room with other corporate executives to come up with a strategy of how are we going to get the american people to support legislation that actually hurts the little guy and helps the big guy steal from the little guy? how are we going to do that? we need a straw man. we need something to get attention that's going to make it look like that's really the goal is to take care of that

evil, stinster -- sinister person over there. they went around the circle trying to come up with a name so sinister to help them with their mission. this is how cynical these people are who are offering this argument about trolls. finally there's a guy talking to me who said, i -- i suggested patent pirate. but by the time it got around, patent troll sounded so much more sinister, they decided to accept that. this is absolutely absurd. it's -- the fact is that we need, if we're going to beat this onslaught of the big guys against the little guy well, little guys have got to stick together. we've got to make sure that we notify our members of congress and talk to other members, we've got to pay attention because this is just another example of when we're not paying attention we lose our freedom our rights are diminished and you can count

on the fact that a demin -- that the diminished rights of our inventors, wages will go down, we will not be secure, we will not be prosperous, this is an important issue yet they're trying to sneak this by with as little debate and as little attention as possible. now how important is this? it's always been important to our country. we didn't have this -- if we didn't have this patent protection i'm talking about, our country would be totally different. let me suggest this. if you look back and see what our founding fathers had in mind, they didn't -- they wanted little guys to be protected and have legal rights. this is what our country was all about. and the innovation and the rights of ownership, this is something that -- innovate, this was our innovation. this was what benjamin franklin talked about and put into our constitution and that has worked

so well for us. but if we cut off the little guys, their struggle, we will not have the new technologies. we will not be the lead for the technology in the world and we will fall behind and every one of us will be hurt by this. one only needs to see how important technology was to our society, one only needs to take a look here in the halls of congress. there's a there's a statue here in the capitol. who the heck knows who he was? they've done a special on him on an education tv, i understand, on the history channel. philo farnsworth was really someone who was important to our country. and there's a statue to philo farnsworth right here in the capitol. he was a farmer in utah, a man

who was educated in engineering, but had very little resources. in fact, he was a farmer. he set out between farming to try to find out and discover a technological secret that had perplexed some of the most powerful and financial interests in our country. well r.c.a. at that time this was back in the turn of the century, in 1910 and 1920 r.c.a. at that time was under a man named david sarnoff. he was america's premier executive at the premier technology company of the united states. a company that had vast resources and was deeply involved with trying to find out how to invent a picture tube. they knew what the radio tube was but they didn't know how to make images on it. how could we have had -- how could they make that radio tube show images? and this is what they really were looking for, they invested so much in it. it was a huge challenge an

historic challenge that r.c.a. dumped millions of dollars of research into. however, they didn't discover it. this -- the one who discovered the secret of the picture tube, which has had so much impact on the american way of life, everything we do, cell phones, you name it, computers, they all have these based on a picture tube, that was philo farnsworth. this independent inventor, this farmer from utah, he discovered the secret and he wrote r.c.a., naively believing that this big corporation would honor his discovery and permit him to have the benefit or at least have the benefit of being recognized as the person who made this discovery. yes, then r.c.a. when he got -- they got the letter from philo farnsworth, they sent a representative to the laboratories there in utah, which was in his barn, i

believe, and when he described to these top engineers from r.c.a. what he had found, the scientists from r.c.a. went away saying, oh, yes, we'll be back in touch with you. of course they never did get back in touch. once they learned his secret, the thing that philo knew was his, he ends up reading an announcement in a magazine how r.c.a. had made this major breakthrough. this discovery. well except philo knew he was the one that discovered it and he was the one who had transmitted that information to r.c.a. this became one of the great jury and great legal battles of the 20th century. philo farnsworth, an individual person, not a wealthy person, the little guy, was up against the most powerful american corporation of the day r.c.a.

one of the toughest strongest leader, this corporate leader and a whole stable full of well tough paid lawyers, all who -- tough, well paid lawyers, all who vowed not to recognize philo farnsworth because r.c.a. deserved to get the credit and the money. philo farnsworth was able to mobilize support behind his claim. people invested in philo farnsworth's claim. and it went all the way to the supreme court. he was able to have people invest in his lawsuit and slowly but surely they made their way through the court system, all the way to the supreme court. well, god bless the united states of america. a poor, single man, an individual farmer came up against one of the most powerful corporations in america at the time, because he had invented something and the supreme court decided with philo farnsworth over this powerful brutally powerful corporation in america.

r.c.a. was beaten by an individual farmer, but he had people who invested in him. had the same laws they're trying to promote now in r.r. -- had the same law they're trying to promote now, little guys would have been betrayed. there would have been nothing they could do because h.r. 9 would prevent him from having people invest in his lawsuit. that's what h.r. 9 does. it says, if a big corporation has stolen from you, if somebody has invested in helping you in your invention they then become liable if you have to sue to get your money and if something happens where the big guys win, well even if you're right and they win, because they have better lawyers, anybody who invests in you has to pay part of the legal fees of these big corporations. which are millions of dollars of legal fees. no one's going to want to invest with a little guy like that. the philo african american

worths would be left out in the cold, the nature of our system would be totally -- farnsworth would be left out in the cold, the nature of our system would be totally different today if we had the provisions of h.r. 9 which they're trying to foist on us now had that been in place. let me give you another example. black americans happen to be some of the most inventive people in the united states. a lot of people don't know that. if you look back in the history of the patent office, as i've been looking what we found is, while black americans were being discriminated against in general throughout our whole system, the patent office was the one place that they had equal rights to come up with their ideas and say, this is what i've discovered. and because of that we have many great black inventors and maybe that's the reason why former chairman of the judiciary committee, john conyers, is taking my side in this debate on h.r. 9. he's opposed to that. we had a black inventor, for example, was the guy who invented the machine that permitted us to mass produce

shoes. before that time there was -- americans had one pair of shoes. and when we started to mass produce it, because this black american struggling on his own because he was discriminated against like all black americans were in that day, but he managed to get his patent accepted and he changed not only himself, but the whole country had shoes after that. isn't that wonderful? that's what happens when you have freedom for the little guy and not just the big guy. they come up with the new ideas, they can uplift everybody. make sure everybody's feet feels better. well, we are on the verge of losing that now. we are on the verge of losing that. when i go out in the hallway of congress here and see a statue to philo farnsworth, and that's where it is, to this utah farmer, who invented the picture tube and had to take on the biggest company, biggest corporate powers in the world, and he won, and i will tell

you, there's his statue there. there's no statue to david sarnoff, the corporate leader who tried to beat him down and steal his technology. i don't care how rich and powerful he was, we respect the little guy in this country. we want the little guys to be able to have rights that are protected by our constitution. that's why our founding fathers put it in the constitution. and we will not see these megacorporations, especially electronic corporations, many of whom don't give one -- don't care one bit about the well-being of the american people because they are multinational corporations now. no, we want to make sure our people maintain their rights, that we keep being the leaders of innovation and that we are able to outcompete the world and not just take all of our jobs overseas and give it to cheap labor. no we want to make sure that americans benefit because this is what america's all about. where the little guy has the same rights legally and that

they are protected. that's what this fight is all about when it comes to h.r. 9. people need to talk to their congressmen and the congressmen need to talk to each other about what this is really all about. it's easy to yawn when someone says, oh, i'm going to discuss patent rights. oh, yeah, patent law. how boring. it is not boring. it's going to make all the difference of whether our country stays safe because we have to have the technological lead to be safe in the world we're getting into now. people are not going to have decent housing or standards of living because the wealth that's produced isn't produced just by hard work, it's produced by technological efficiency and we have to be the cutting edge or we will be outcompeted by people overseas. this is going to determine what america's going to be like. so i would ask my colleagues to join me in opposing h.r. 9. let's talk to the universities let's talk to the other industries that are being hurt dramatically by this and just

talk to the inventors, let the inventors know. and so with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015 the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. al green, for 30 minutes. mr. green: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker i'd like to also thank the leadership for allowing this time on the floor to take up h.res. 329. h.res. 329 encourages the celebration of the month of june as lgbtq pride month. and i bring this to the floor mr. speaker, because i have had some experiences in life that have caused me to understand why it's important that we do this. someone might ask mr. speaker why would you al green, a person who is not gay, a person

who is considered straight, why would you bring a resolution to the floor, a resolution to celebrate and recognize some of the most notable events in lgbt q movement, in the movement of the lgbtq community? well, let me explain why. i am a son of the south. more specifically, i am a son of the segregated south. i grew up at a time when my friends and neighbors denied me rights that the constitution of the united states of america accorded me. i was forced to go to back doors. i was forced to drink from colored water fountains. i was forced to ride in the back of the bus. i was a son of the segregated south.

and as a son of the segregated south, i learned early in life what discrimination was like. i learned what it smelled like. because i had to go to filthy toilet facilities. i learned what it looked like because i saw the klan burn crosses. i learn what had it sounded like because i was called names that we no longer use in plight society. -- polite society. i'm a son of the segregated south. and i know what discrimination looks like, feels like, smells like. i know what it hurts like. i know of the people who lost their lives in the effort to try to bring about justice and equality for all. a -- people lost -- a wife lost

her husband in a worthy cause, in a cause for justice. so i know what it's like. i know that notwithstanding my circumstance as a straight guy, i didn't get here by myself. there were people who lived and died so that i could have the blessings that i have. john died in austin texas, fighting for the rights of black people. john was not black. the people who form the naacp, in an effort to stop lynchings there were almost commonplace, a good many of them were not black. i have been the beneficiary of the efforts of people who do

not look like me, people who had blessings such that they could have gone on with their lives, there was no reason other than they wanted justice for all for them to take up my cause. and i believe that when you are blessed there's a reason for it. you are blessed so that you may be a blessing to others. you have such that you may help those who have less or have not. and hence i find myself standing on the floor tonight of the congress of the united states of america, proud to sponsor a resolution to encourage the celebration of the month of june as lgbtq pride month. this resolution celebrates and recognizes some of the most notable events of the lgbtq movement. and what i'd like to do is explain what this resolution

actually does. h.res. 329. h.res. 329 celebrates the accomplishments of houston mayor anise parker, the first lesbian elected as mayor of houston, texas. and i'm proud that it does because not only was she elected mayor of houston texas, before she was mayor, she served as the city's controller for six years. and before serving in this capacity, she served on city council for six years. . she has earned the right to be recognized and proud to have her recognized in h.res. 329. it celebrates the hard work that the transgender community has done to spread awareness about tolerance and inclusion and encouraging the communities to keep on working toward broader

inclusion. we live in a society that has within its pledge of allegiance the words, liberty and justice for all. i salute the flag of the united states of america. and i'm proud to do so, because i'm a proud american. liberty and justice for all. that means that we have to encourage liberty and justice for those who are in the transgender community and encourage them to keep on fighting for liberty and justice. this resolution recognizes the protestors who stood for human rights and justices on june 28, 1968 as some of the pioneers of the movement. it celebrates the gay rights organizations in major cities in the aftermath of the stonewall

uprising. after stonewall, there was an uprising in a very positive way that took place. people realized that there was something they should do to make sure that justice and equality were more than words for those who were part of the community. this resolution highlights the importance of the american psychiatric association removing homo sexuality from its list of meant will illnesses in december of 1973. there is a recognition in the medical community that we should not have and that we must undo what has been done by labeling people as mentally ill because they were being the persons that god created them to be.

we have a saying in my community that god didn't create any junk. and people who are homo sexual are not junk and not persons with a mental illness but people who deserve the dignity and respect of all human beings and the dignity and accord. and i stand here as a friend of the community to make it known that there are people who are willing to stand alone and fight for the rights of others notwithstanding any consequences that may be put upon them. this resolution recognizes elaine noble as the first lgbt candidate elected to a state legislature in 1974. and barney frank as the first representative to come out as an openly gay member of congress in

1987. i have the privilege of knowing the honorable barney frank. i served on the financial services committee when he was the chairperson of that committee. he was a person committed to human rights for all, for human dignity for all. and i'm proud to stand here tonight and say he has become an honorary member of the persons who are sponsoring this resolution. and by the way, there are many persons in congress who are sponsoring this resolution and i thank all of them for signing onto it. the honorable barney frank is no longer in congress. that is why he is listed as a co-sponsor of the resolution. this resolution highlights the importance of the civil service commission eliminating the ban of hiring homosexuals in most federal jobs in 1975.

it seems unimaginable and unthinkable that we had to have a civil rights commission to eliminate the ban on hiring persons because of their sexual preference, because of their sexual orientation. it just seems unimaginable. but had to happen and it did. it celebrates harvey milk, making national news when he was sworn in as an openly gay member of the fran board of supervisors -- of the san francisco board of supervisors. i remember when it happened. it was really big news in this country. and quite frankly, it took courage for him to do this. and the kind of courage that he showed has merited his being mentioned in this resolution h.res. 329. it praises the thousands of

activists who participated in the national march on washington for lesbian and gay rights to demand equal civil rights in 1979 and the national march on washington to demand that president reagan address the aids crisis in 1987. there were some people who, because they thought that the disease impacted a certain segment of society, did not readily respond with the hand of help that was available. and i'm grateful that president reagan did take up this cause to help with the fight against aids. aids can impact anyone in our society. and i'm proud that our government has spent money on this disease to help eliminate it. but we haven't spent enough and

we haven't done enough. i think we can do more and we should do more. the resolution highlights the importance of the 1980 democratic national convention where democrats took a stance in support of gay rights. i'm proud of my party. i happen to be a democrat and this isn't a partisan effort. and the party took a stance when it wasn't popular to take the stance. it has become popular now to a certain extent and to a certain degree to support gay rights and the rights of gay people. in 1980, it isn't as popular as it is today and the party brought a lot of others along with us. the resolution highlights the supreme court ruling. in may of 1996, which found a colorado constitutional amendment to vetting the

enactment of protection for gays and lesbians unconstitutional. it is important that we challenge laws that prevent people from having equality of opportunity from receiving the same access to all that society has to offer, as other people. and i'm honored that the com -- colorado amendment preventing the enactment of protections for gays and lesbians was found unconstitutional. it celebrates vermont becoming the first state to legally recognize civil unions between gay and lesbian couples in 2000. and my, have we come a long say since 2000. we have come a long way because a good many people in this country now understand that the laws ought to apply equally to

all, that the 14th amendment is not for some. it is for all. and the judges hop interpret these laws, who are indicating that these laws should apply appropriately to the lgbtq community, these judges are not all gay judges. these are judges who are sworn to uphold the constitution of the united states of america and they are doing it because they know it's the right thing to do. the supreme court will be taking up the case of gay marriage and in fact, is taking it up and will make a ruling sometime in the very near future. my hope is that the supreme court will honor the 14th amendment and will allow the constitution of the united states to apply to the members of the lgbtq community to the same extent that it applies to

other people in other communities. the law should be blind to who you are and ought to give you justice because you happen to be a person that is subject of the constitution. it ought not peek to see if you are of a different hue or a different sexual orientation. it ought to weigh equally all people and mete out justice to all the same. this goes to matthew shepard of the hate crimes prevention act which was signed into law by president obama as it expanded the federal hate crime laws to include crimes motivated by a victim's perceived gender. sectional orientation or disability. people ought not be assaulted because of who they are.

and what this does is it recognizes that if you assault a police officer because you know that person is a police officer then the crime that you will be charged with is enhanced. the punishment is enhanced. you will be punished more severely, because you have assaulted a peace officer. this is the law in the state of texas. if you assault a person because of who that person happens to be and because you don't happen to like that person because of the person's gender because of the person's ethnicity or color there ought to be a special punishment for you, because you have hurt somebody that you don't know in a good many circumstances and you want to do because you don't like the person's looks or the person's perceived sexual orientation. the law has been changed and it punishes you if you decide you

are going to commit this type of crime. this resolution celebrates 2012 as the first year in which all 50 states had at least one lgbtq elected official. all 50 states have one person who is part of the community holding public trust. people have come to understand that it's not the color of skin it's not sexual orientation, it's the character within a person that determines whether or not a person ought to hold public trust whether or not a person ought to be respected appropriately. it's the character not the way the person is perceived in terms of color or sexual orientation. this resolution celebrates

senator tammy baldwin being sworn in as the first openly gay senator sworn in january of 201 and she has served her country well and merits this sort of recognition. the resolution highlights the importance of the supreme court ruling in the united states versus windsor on june 26 2013, which found that section 3 of the defense of marriage act, doma found it unconstitutional and determined that the federal government cannot discriminate against married, lesbian and gay couples for the purpose of determining federal benefits and protection. this is the supreme court of the united states of america. the same supreme court with conservative and liberal justices on it. we don't have to agree with everything the supreme court

does, but i thank god that we respect the decisions. we can differ with them, even the justices themselves differ about various opinions but they respect the rulings of the court. and this supreme court has made such a ruling as it relates to the defense of marriage act. this resolution celebrates the 37 states and the district of columbia where it is now legal for same-sex couples to get married. literally, more than half of the states in the united states of america now permit same-sex couples to get married. more than half of the states. this means that this country is moving fward without a ruling from the supreme court that the notion that same-sex couples should be allowed to not only love each other, but to marry each other and have the same benefits that heterosexual

couples have when they marry. marriage is a good institution. i celebrate the institution of marriage. but the law under the 14th amendment seems to indicate that we cannot prevent people who are of the same sex who love each other, from having the same opportunities to benefit from the institution of marriage that other people who are heterosexual have the opportunity to benefit from. . so the states that have decided they'll do this should be recognized. states that recognize same-sex marriages. by the way many of these states recognize same-sex marriage because of judges in those states who have made rulings. because of legislatures in those states who have legislated. because of people in those states who have voted. 37 states. the states include alabama

alaska arizona, california, colorado, connecticut all states that recognize same-sex marriage. delaware, florida hawaii, idaho states that recognize same-sex marriage. indiana, iowa illinois, kansas maine maryland massachusetts, minnesota, all recognize same-sex marriage. montana, nevada new hampshire, new jersey new mexico, new york north carolina, oklahoma, ohio, all recognize same-sex marriage. oregon pennsylvania, rhode island south carolina, utah, vermont virginia, washington west virginia, wisconsin, all states in the united states of america that recognize same-sex marriage. so mr. speaker i'm honored to

present the resolution and i'm honored to do so because i know the importance of having people who were not of african ancestry who supported causes that made it possible for me to be here. and i have a debt that i owe and i hope that tonight i have made a down payment on the retirement of that debt. because somebody suffered so that i could have the opportunity to stand in the congress of the united states of america and make this floor speech. no one could have or would have predicted at my birth that i would have the opportunity to be a member of the congress of the united states of america. for me to be here, somebody had to find out what a 90-pound

german shepherd bites like. somebody had to find out what a high-pressure water hoast stings like -- hose stings like. somebody had to -- stings like. somebody had to find out what going to jail feels like. somebody had to find out what losing someone that you love dearly to a cause hurts like. i'm not here because i'm so smart. i'm here because there are people who were willing to make great sacrifices so that i could have the opportunities that i have. and because i have them i have a debt that i owe and i am here tonight to say that i'm proud to stand with the lgbtq community to help bring about the kind of justice for this community that i have enjoyed. now, let me be clear about one thing. i'm not saying that we have reached the panacea as it relates to the african-american

community. there is still great work to be done, as evidenced by what happened in charlotte, south carolina. still great work to be done. still heavy lifting to do. but i'm also very proud of some things that happened there. i happen to be in a position to hear the hearing that took place, the bond hearing. and as i listened i could not believe my ears. when i -- my ears. when i heard a mother say, you took my son, took her hero, but i forgive you i forgive you, time and time again persons

said i forgive you. i had tears to well in my eyes. because it takes a special person to say, i forgive you, so close to the event that is being forgiven or that the forgiveness addresses. it takes a special person. and i want to compliment the families of the persons who lost their lives in church, my god, in church, lost their lives in church. i want to commend those families for having what dr. martin luther king called the strength to love. the strength to love. he wrote the book "the strength to love." it is a collection of his

sermons. and he makes it known to us in that book that it is not easy to love your enemy. it's not easy to forgive those who would persecute you. but he also makes it known in that book, the strength -- in that book, "the strength to love," that that's what love is all about. loving those who would do ugly things to you, who would be spiteful, who would be evil. and i think that the family members in charlotte who have shown the strength to love are a supreme, superb sterling example to the rest of this country of what we must do if we are to continue to live

together, such that we will have a future that will be void of the kind of behavior the ugly dastardly deed, if you will, that thank took place in that church. because -- that took place in that church. because dr. king reminded us also that we have a duty, an obligation if you will, to each other to live to -- to learn to live together as brothers and sisters. we must learn to live together as brothers and sisters. because if we don't learn to live together as brothers and sisters we will perish together as fools. i thank you, mr. speaker for the time. i thank the leadership for according me the opportunity to present the resolution. i thank the people of south carolina for exhibiting the ultimate and the strength to love and i thank god that i have been blessed and i pray that god will continue to give me the strength to be a blessing to others. and i yield back the balance of

my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015 the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i enjoy hearing my friend from texas former judge down in houston talk about love. i do love him as a christian brother. and we can disagree and still love each other. and i've been surprised in recent years to find some of

those of us who believe in the book that used to be read here a pretty common practice on the floor of the house on sundays, now in the hall, statuary hall, and even in this room back when church services were held on sunday in the former house chamber attended there by the man that first coined the phrase separation of church and state, since it's not in the constitution, it was in his letter to the danbury baseballtivities. he came to a nondenominational christian worship service just down the hall. christian -- christian services here. of course diamond jefferson would even bring the marine band and have them play hymns. although he made clear he believed in separation of church and state, used that phrase he didn't see any problem with singing hymns and

having the marine band play the hymns to accompany right here in the u.s. capitol. i've been surprised in recent years, as prominent as the bible was in our founding, so much so that when -- toward the end of june 1787, the constitutional convention was at which the's end, having a great -- wit's end, having a great deal of trouble, randolph from virginia made a motion that they all convene together on the nation's birthday and worship god together. services under the auspices of the bible. and they came back and were able to reach a conclusion that we call the constitution. people like alexander hamilton said clearly the finger of god

was in that. and it all came into place. after they worshiped the lord, the bible and used the bible in worship there in 1787. but it's amazing now, after the bible was such a prominent part of our founding, throughout our history now those of us that believe what's in the bible, we're the ones who are now discriminated against. i've suffered it right here in this town. not to the extent of being harmed physically. of course physical threats are not uncommon. but they were when i was a judge as well. so i'm just going to read without comment. this book that's been read in this capitol throughout our history, romans 1 beginning at

16. for i am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of god for salvation to every one who believes, to the due first and -- jew first and also to the greek for in it the righteousness of god is revealed from faith to faith. as it is written but the righteous man shall live by faith. for the wrath of god is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. because that which is known about god is evident within them, for god made him, for since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes, his internal power, divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made. so that they are without excuse . for even though they knew god they did not honor him as god or give thanks. but they became few tile in

their speculations -- fut -- futile in their speculations and their foolish heart was darkened. professing to be wise, they became fools. and exchanged the glory of the incorruptive god -- incorruptble god for an image in the form of corruptble man. and of birds. four-footed animals, crawling creatures. therefore god gave them over in the lust of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. for they exchanged the truth of god for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator. who is blessed forever, amen. for this reason god gave them over to degrading passions. for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural. and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire for one another. men with men committing

indecent acts. because i believe the scripture, love those who don't, love those -- because we've all sinned one way or another. so no room to hate anybody that's sinned because we all have. we've all fallen short. but i'm sure my office mr. speaker will be getting nasty angry, bitter calls, as we often do when we refer to the bible that helped give us our founding. but that is what the bible said. i'm deeply concerned that we have supreme court judges two of whom have actually participated in same-sex weddings, thereby showing how

biased and partial they are in favor of such things, against the dignity and history of marriage in the country marriage in the bible. moses, it's been said many times here over our history, moses said it came from god that moses depicted right up above the center door. . the two will become one flesh. when jesus was asked about marriage, he repeated it, a man shall leave his father and woman and jesus added what god has joined put together let no man put asunder. we have two judges that indicated otherwise.

and they have shown themselves to be anything but impartial. so under the law 28 united states code 455 is mandatory. it shall, they shall disqualify themselves. and if it turns out that on occasion which they are clearly disqualified on the part of the majority, they cannot possibly be a legitimate law change, judges substituting their law for the law that this country has utilized throughout its history. yes courts all over the country have substituted their judgment for state constitutions and laws and for those who don't believe

the bible, you got nothing to worry about. but the indicationsr romans 1, god's protective hand will be withdrawn and we continue to abandon the nation's founding. thank god churches fought for -- so many were involved in the movement to make the constitution mean just what it said. we shouldn't have had to have an 14th amendment. everybody should have been equal under the law, but it took an amendment, took a civil rights movement to apply across the board, and now we have judges that will be oligarc hmp s as they have been and will be

making decisions. and we will see how much longer the nation lasts. there is no hate, just a broken heart in me, but i will be accused of being a hate monger this, hate monger that, and that's not the case. and i would like to congratulate our own leadership, mr. speaker. this is the "hill" obama poised on a huge win on trade. i would like to congratulate our speaker, our republican leadership for pushing through the trade deal, leader mcconnell down the hall. the president could not have gotten this ability to fast track, to make deals that we won't know about without the republican leadership making that happen for him. of course, nobody that i know of

on the republican side ran promising that we would get such ability for president obama but congratulations go there. some people say, i'm not quick enough to congratulate on republican leadership. i mean i have congratulated our speaker before when he was chairman of the education committee. as president bush cited in his book, our announced speaker was very important, very instrumental in getting no child left behind pushed through and we won the majority in november, 2010 and got it back. that december deals were worked out that cost the country a lot of spending raised the debt a great deal. since then, although we continue to promise we are going to do something about the debt we

continue to give the president almost a blank check. but congratulations on all these. congratulations on enabling the president to make these kind of deals. then we'll see if this law finally t.p.a. gives us notice, timely as he hasn't done in so many other areas like guantanamo guantanamo and releasing people from guantanamo. but we have an article here, i guess congratulations would go to the commander in chief, because i don't know that this would be the lying down with the lamb, because if this lamb is the iran -- iranian military-backed forces --

the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman suspend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. gohmert: and that's the message we're getting that the bill that was regarding i.r.s. taxation and deductions, as i recall, that was completely stripped and the trade bill substituted therein, part of the

charades we play around here, but this article from "blook berg" june 22, says the u.s. military in iranian-backed shia militia are getting closer in iraq while sharing a base. while iran expands their influence in iraq and fight along side assad regime in neighboring syria. two confirmed to us that two groups are both using the military base in anbar and where president obama is sending 450 u.s. military personnel to help train the local forces fighting against the islamic state. some of them at the base have

killed american soldiers in the past. some inside the obama administration fear that sharing the base with u.s. soldiers at risk. the u.s. intelligence community has reported back to washington that representatives of some of the more extreme militias have been spying at the base. one senior official told us that that could be terrible that the fragile relationship between the u.s. military and shia militia come to part and iran-backed forces decide to again target u.s. troops. american critics of this growing cooperation between the u.s. military and iranian-backed militias call it a betrayal of the u.s. personnel who fought against the u.s. occupation of iraq. quote it's an insult to the families of the american

soldiers that were wounded and killed in battles in which the shia militias were the enemy, end quote said john mccain told us. quote, now providing arms to them and supporting them it's hard for those families to understand, unquote. the u.s. are not training shiite units which are known as the mobilization forces, the iraqis who have volunteered to fight against the islamic state as well as militants who answer to militia leaders loyal to tehran. but the u.s. is flying close air support missions for those forces. the u.s. gives weapons directly only to the iraqi government and the iraqi security forces, but the lines between them and the militias are blurry.

u.s. weapons often fall into the hands of militias like iraqiy hezbollah. sometimes the cooperation is even more explicit. commanders of some of the hardbehind militias sit in on u.s. military briefings on operations that were meant for the government-controlled iraqi security forces, a senior administration official said. this collaboration with terrorist groups that have killed americans was seen as unavoidable as the u.s. marshaled iraqis against the u.s. state but could prove counterproductive in the long-term, this official said. it complies with shiite volunteers and headed by the iraqi hezbollah. he was sanctioned in 2009 by the

treasury department for destabilizing iraq. he is a close associate of the iranian kuds force commander who has snapped selfees at key battles. other militias that have participated include the league of the righteous, which is -- which in 2007 carried out a roadside execution of five u.s. soldiers year karballa. the group to this day boast the killing. in an view in february, the spokesman said they killed more. members of this group have defended the assad regime in neighboring syria.

james clapper confirmed in a june 3 leader to seven republican senators, that, quote iran and hezbollah have also leveraged allied iraqi-shia and militant terrorist groups which received training in iran to participate in the pro--assad operations, unquote. well the militias stand accused of gross human rights atrocities in sunni areas. the state department criticized iran's support and those militias hee behavior in its annual report on worldwide terrorism released last week. further down, deadline approaching that would place up to $150 billion in the hands of iran the u.s. has acknowledged

in its annual report on international terrorism, that iran is supporting a foreign lieges comprising iraqis to defend iranian interests throughout the middle east. but the u.s. response to this is inconsistent. in iraq, america's fighting along side iranian-backed militias. in syria u.s.-supported forces are fighting against those. the tragedy of this policy is that the islamic state has been able to hold and expand its territory in iraq and syria while iran has tightened its grip on baghdad. then another article from daniel "conservative review." . anyone who visits walter reed

will see the destruction. thousands of our troops have been incapacitated and mangled from i.e.d.'s from hezbollah, all funded by obama's ally iran. anyone who was around in 1983 will remember the 241 american servicemen who were killed in the hezbollah terror attack in beirut. so guess what obama is doing with them? it reports in "bloomberg news," we are bailing them out of their humiliating loss the islamic state. the article goes on, but it's just exceedingly tragic but it explains why the president's been unable to state that we have a clear strategy in the middle east because on the one hand, we've had the united

states military give their lives fighting against the tyranny and the atrot yits of hezbollah. on the other hand, we now have the president, the commander in chief who commands over our forces that he has put in the same camp with hezbollah and the hope apparently by the administration is, even though they are still bragging in hezbollah about killing american soldiers but maybe having them camp in the same camp, they won't be killing them now. got to love that optimism. . . as we see the commander in chief's troops being forced to come together with people like hezbollah that want to kill them have killed them have maimed them hezbollah clearly

supported by iran. then we get this a.p. exclusive document outlined the big power nuke help to iran, a george john, dated today from vienna. the united states and other nations negotiating a nuclear deal with iran are ready to offer high-tech reactors and other state-of-the-art equipment to tehran if it agrees to crimp programs that can make you a topic bombs according to a confidential document obtained tuesday by -- tuesday. the draft document, one of several technical things meant to accompany the main text of any deal has dozens of bracketted texts where disagreements remain. technical cooperation is the least controversial issue at the talks and the number of brackets suggest the sides have a ways to go, not only on the topic but also more contentious disputes with little authorize than a week until the june 30 deadline for a deal.

with that deadline looming, iran stopped -- iran's top leader on tuesday rejected a long-term freeze on nuclear research and supported banning international inspectors from accessing military sites. khomeini in comments broadcast on iranian state television also said iran will sign a final deal provided all economic sanctions now in iran are first lifted in a sign the islamic republic may be toughenings i stance ahead of the deadline -- toughening its stance ahead of the deadline. in any event, great news. this, of course, the senate and the house passed a bill that turned requirements for authorization of treaties upside down instead of having 2/3 of the senate required to approve a deal. we flipped it. now it will take 2/3 of a vote

in the house and senate to disapprove a deal. so that makes it easier for the president to give iran the nuclear reactors they're hoping and, mr. speaker, i brought this up in past years but here in negotiating with iran, one of our lead negotiators was the same person who was involved in the clinton administration negotiations with north korea. where they cut this wonderful deal basically saying, in essence, we'll give you nuclear reactors for power if you'll just promise that you won't use them to make nuclear weapons. and this dishonest evil leader says, all you want is a promise from a dishonest leader that i won't use them to make nukes? sure, i'll promise you that. bring on the nuclear power

plant. so those came and they were converted and now north korea is helping with evil parts of the evil empire to develop nuclear weapons of their own. so, when you have somebody involved in that kind of deal with north korea, sent to negotiate with iran, we should have known that this would be coming. hey we will give you nuclear reactors, we'll help you make it happen, we just don't want you to use them to make nuclear weapons. and since iran has been, at least the leaders have been so evil in the way they have pursued israel in the way they pursued americans, continuing to brag about killing americans , i don't think anybody should really be surprised if this deal gets cut and then iran

goes ahead and uses what we provide them or the p-5 plus one provide them in order to make nuclear weapons more quickly than they could have without this kind of deal. but congratulations again go to the republican leaders in the house and senate for pushing through the authority for the president to have the ability to make these kind of deals. who says i can't be magnanimous and thank republican leaders? i hope the american public will wake up and understand the deal that's been negotiated is deadly to our ally israel, it's deadly to the united states and make it clear that any party that hopes to have any chance of having a president-elected from their party better not be part of the deal with iran because it's going to get more americans and israelis killed.

and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house stands in recess subject to the call of the chair.

$. >> tomorrow on washington journal, nick mulvaney discusses the charleston church shootings and removing the confederate flag. after that new york representative paul tonchingoover looks at a supreme court case whether the e.p.a.

properly considered costs. plus your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. "washington journal" is live on thursday and every day at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> i'm not one of those who believes in the psychiatric examination of people, you know. i believe that most of these people should be on the couch themselves whether than analyze people they never met. when i meet people, i don't judge people whether they have a firm handshake or eye contact but listen to what they say. you don't learn anything when you are talking. >> many tragedies, he was self-conscious and not self-aware. nixon did have a sigh ki atist.

and and the doctor said he didn't want to think nixon was being analyzed. he had illnesses and his neck hurt and couldn't sleep and the doctor gave him mild therapy. even though he wept to one he hated sigh ki terrorists and afraid of -- psychiatrists. he said i don't carry grudges. he was one of the great grudge carriers of all time. he could be unself-reflective and his lashing out at enemies is what destroyed him. >> talks about the victories of defeat and inner turmoil of richard nixon and the personal stories. subpoenaed night at 8:00 eastern

and pacific on c-span. bringing you events that shape public policy and every morning washington jourm is live with elected officials and policy makers and jourmists and your comments by c-span. and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> coming up tonight on c-span, president obama announcing changes to the u.s. hostage policy and that is followed by more on the new policy with the assistant to the president on homeland security and counterterrorism and louisiana governor announcing his candidacy for government. governor jindal's announcement,

a rising star desperately seeking to become one again. he will run for president in 2016. the 44-year-old was the first indian-american to become a u.s. governor and he sought to play up his long shot status casting himself as a man who owed nothing to the republican establishment and that announcement for you in 30 minutes. right now president obama's announcement about the change to u.s. hostage policy. this is about 15 minutes. president obama: begins 9/11, americans have been taken by

terrorists. for these innocent men and women, terrorists journalists humanitarians, it's a horror and cruelty beyond description. for their families and for their friends, it's an unrelenting nightmare that the rest of us can't begin to imagine. as a government, we should always do everything in our power to bring these americans home safe and support their families. dedicated public servants across our government work tirelessly to do so. our military personnel risk their lives such as the operation i authorized last year that attempted to rescue them in syria and yemen and there have been successes such as the capture of richard phillips and jessica buchanan rescued from

somalia. of these more than 80 american hostages taken since 9/11, more than half have come home, some after many years. tragically, too many others have not. and at this very moment, americans continue to be held by terrorist groups ordained unjustly by foreign governments. for them, the nightmare goes on and so does our work to reunite them with their loved ones. the terror threat is evolving. ilse i'll barbaric murder of american hostages and the families of hostages have told us and told me directly about their frequent frustrations in dealing with their own government how different departments and agencies aren't always coordinated, how there's been confusion and conflicting

information about what the government is prepared to do to help and how they have felt lost in the bureaucracy and how in some cases families feel they have been threatened for exploring options to bring their loved ones home. that's totally unacceptable. as i have gotten to know some of these families and heard some of these stories it has been my solemn commitment to make sure that they feel feelly supportive in their efforts to get their families home and that there is a sinking up of what i know to be sincere relentless efforts within government and the families who obviously have one priority and one priority only and that is getting their loved ones back. these families have already suffered enough and should never feel ignored nor victimized by their own government.

diane foley, whose son was killed last year, said, as americans we can do better. i totally agree. he must do better. that is why i have ordered a comprehensive review of our hostage policy. i want to thank everybody who contributed to this review inside and outside of government, some of whom are here today. i especially want to thank the former hostages and families who contributed. i have come to know some of these families often under the most heartbreaking of circumstances. when her son peter was being held in syria his mother wrote me a letter, describing how on clear nights she and her husband would look up at the stars and moon and wonder if perhaps their son might be able to see them, a reminder of the bond they might still share. i have called these families to offer condolences after they

receive gut wrenching news that no parent ever wants to hear. i visited with them, i hugged them, i grieved with them. i just spent time with some of the families and some over hostages here at the white house. needless to say, it was a very emotional meeting. some are still breathing. i thank them for sharing their experiences and their ideas with our review team. in fact, many of the changes we are announcing today are a direct result of their recommendations. i-8 knowledge to them -- i acknowledged to them in private what i want to make policy. there are times when our government, regardless of good intentions, has let them down. i promised them that we can do better. here's how. today, i am formally issuing a new presidential policy directive to improve how we work

to bring home american hostages and how we support their families. i have signed a new executive order to ensure our government is organized to do so. we are releasing the final report of our view, which describes two dozen specific steps we are taking. broadly speaking they follow the three areas -- hearst, i'm updating our hostage policy. i'm making it clear that our top priority is the safe and rapid recovery of american hostages. to do so we will use all elements of our national power. i am reaffirming that the united states government will not make concessions such as paying ransom to terrorist groups holding american hostages. i know this can be a subject of significant public debate. it is a difficult and emotional issue, especially for the families. as i said to the families who were gathered here today, i said that families in the past -- i

look at this as a husband and president and father. if my family were at risk, i would move heaven and earth to get those loved ones back. as president, i also have to consider our larger national security. i firmly believe that the united states government paying ransom to terrorists risks endangering more americans and funding the very terrorism we are trying to stop. i firmly believe that our policy ultimately puts fewer americans at risk. at the same time, we are clarifying that our policy does not prevent communication with hostage takers by our government, the families of hostages, or third parties who help these families. and when appropriate, our government may assist these families and private efforts in those communications. in part to ensure the safety of family members and to make sure

they are not defrauded. my message to these families is simple -- we aren't going to abandon you. we will stand by you. second we are making changes to ensure our government is better organized. every department that is involved in our national security apparatus cares deeply about these hostages prioritizes them, and works really hard, but they are not always as well coordinated as they need to be. under the national security council here at the white house we are setting up a new hostage response group, comprised of senior officials from across the government who will be responsible for ensuring that our hostage policies are consistent and coordinated, implemented rapidly and effectively. they will be accountable at the highest levels. a will be accountable to me.

soon i will be designating as well a senior diplomat as my special presidential envoy for hostage affairs who will be focused solely on leading our diplomatic efforts with other countries to bring our people home. at the operational level, we are creating for the first time one central hub where experts from across the government will work together side-by-side as one, coordinated team to find american hostages and bring them home safely. this fusion cell, located at the fbi, is already up and running and we are designating a new official in the intelligence community to be responsible for coordinating the collection, analysis, and rapid dissemination of information related to american hostages so we can act on it quickly. third, i am running through all these efforts and fundamentally changing how are our government works with families. many of the families told us they at times felt like an afterthought or a distraction

that too often the law enforcement or military and intelligence officials they were interacting with were begrudging in giving them information. that ends today. i am making it clear that these families are to be treated like what they are -- our trusted partners and active partners in the recovery of their loved ones. we are all on the same team and nobody cares more about bringing home these americans than their own families. we have to treat them as partners. specifically, our new fusion cell will include a person dedicated to coordinating the families. this coordinator will ensure that we communicate with families better with one, clear voice and that the families get information that is timely and accurate. working with the intelligence community, we will be sharing more intelligence with families,

and this coordinator will be the family's voice within government, making sure that when decisions are made about their loved ones, their concerns are front and center. everyone who deals with these families on a regular basis will be given additional training to ensure families are treated with dignity and compassion that they deserve. in particular, i want to point out that no family of an american hostage has ever been prosecuted for paying a ransom for the return of their loved ones. the last thing we should ever do is to add to families' pain with threats like that. the bottom line is this -- when it comes to how our government works to recover americans held hostage and how we work with their families, we are changing how we do business. after everything they've endured, these families have a right to be skeptical, and that is why it is so important as i told them today, that we

will be setting up mechanisms to ensure accountability and diplomat tatian. i directed my national security team to the report back to me, including getting feedback from families to make sure that these reforms are being put in place and that they are working. on the course of our view, several families told us they wanted to spare other families the frustrations they endured. some have even created a new organization to support families like there's, or to honor their loved ones, such as the memorial foundation for steven sotloff who wrote "everyone has to lives, the second one begins when you realize when you only have one." as a nation, we can learn from the example of the strength we have seen in all of these held hostage, including kayla mueller. kayla devoted her life to serving those in need around the

world, to refugees in syria who lost everything. she was a source of comfort and hope. before her tragic death, she was held by isil in syria for a year and a half and during her activity she managed to smuggle a letter to her family. she said "none of us could have known it would be this long, but i know i am also fighting for in the ways i am able and i have a lot of fight left in me. i'm not breaking in and i will give in a matter how long it takes." today, my message to anyone who harms americans is that we do not forget. our reach as long, justice will be done. my message to every american being held unjustly around the world who was fighting from the inside to survive another day my message to their families who want to hold them once more, is that the united states of america will never stop working to reunite you with your family. we will not give up, no matter

how long it takes. thank you very much, everybody. at wednesday's white house briefing, the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism give additional details on the change to u.s. hostage policy. >> good afternoon. >> as i understand it, the long-standing u.s. policy against negotiating a hostage is still forbidden. but the government will facilitate issues in a ransom. if i come as a bad guy in the middle east, either way, i take an american. >> i want to be very clear about what we said today, and the president was very clear. the united states government policy provides no concessions to those who take off to just

stands continues to be the policy. what we did today and what we have done is to clarify that no concession does not mean no communication. unfortunately that needed clarification, and that came through loud and clear in the review that we did. with respect to your question about whether that is a distinction, i appreciate that critique and i understand that analysis but i think what is very important and what the president said both to the families with whom he met earlier today and in the roosevelt room today is that we will not abandon families. we are going to work with them. i want to take issue with the term "facilitate your co the government -- with the term "facilitate." we will work with families to try and advise them, to give

them the benefit of our best advice, but we will not abandoned them when we make hard decisions and we will be guided by a focus on their security, to be sure they are not victimized further. >> the president said that we are right to be skeptical -- how many families did he meet with? what did they -- what kind of reaction did they have an did he ask them to stand behind them? >> the president that today with about 40 former hostages and families of former and current hostages. he met with them and what he ate knowledged was a very emotional meeting. i ended number of my colleagues spent several hours with these

same families yesterday. what we did was we went through and the president continued to describe the changes we were making the review that he ordered, and the policy directive that he signed and the executive order he signed. he fielded questions about the review, about the process and about the accountability for making sure that we implement these changes. what is very clear is that families want to make sure they continue to be partners in this effort and to continue to feed into the process and make sure that we are implementing. >> did he talk to -- ? >> no, it was about hearing from them, their questions, their concerns and he had already met with them and described his statement, then made the public statement.

>> the president pointedly noted that nobody has been prosecuted for pursuing a ransom option. i'm wondering if that becomes a signal to potential hostage takers that it is ok, that they will get some kind of remuneration if they kidnap someone. does it create this bifurcated system where private citizens can pursue that path, soldiers who were captured can get -- but other government officials who are serving in dangerous ways may not have the possibility of availing themselves to that kind of exchange? >> i think what is true is that this is an extremely complex

environment that we are navigating and what the president talked about today with the families is that we are confronting a hostagetaking environment and the threat from terrorist actors that has changed and is not the same one that we decide our policies for. the statements about no families ever having been prosecuted -- those were made by the justice department, and it is simply a statement of fact. they do not intend to add to a family's pain as they are going through these ordeals. doesn't signal something? i can't speak to that, i can't speak to the motivation of the brutal actors we've seen. what is true is that the motivations include propaganda and sheer brutality, and it is not always about profit. >> the policy remains the same

and there is a reason, and ideological reason for the policy, but will the u.s. government tried to dissuade families from paying the ransom? and also, when you say that the government won't facilitate -- we know in the past that there was a facilitation, but you are also saying that they can assist with communication. how do you draw the line between not facilitating a ransom payment but facilitating communication that could be exactly for that reason? >> i am not going to get into very specific tactics. i think nobody here would want me to, and lay there a playbook for terrorist activity. what i will say is that there are very good reasons for communication and for helping a family communicate if they needed, if it is part of a plan that the family designs together with the government.

that is really the goal here. what we are trying to do is put in place a partner approach where families said quite clearly to us and have experienced that they felt neglected, abandoned on the outside of strategies or efforts to recover their loved ones, sometimes not knowing what was happening or what that strategy was what we are trying to put in place here is an environment where they will be part of that process, where they will be able to participate in designing that recovery strategy. there will be a single government entity led by a senior official who wakes up every morning with the charge to develop those recovery strategies and is held accountable and every case will be different. >> could you address criticism

that she would prefer to see -- some members of congress have asked that -- he brought someone in directly answerable to him to carry out his coordinating role. why would it not have been better? ? >> there are valid reasons and i understand the perspective. we have worked with a number of folks in congress what i want to be very clear about the gap that we heard and saw that needed to be filled -- it was very important, where operationally

all elements of the government were coming together in one place, not stove piped in one agency there needed to be one place operationally where the expert, the investigators, the intelligence analyst all sat together and focused 100% of their time on these recovery strategies. that operational work is not appropriately put in the white house. it was seen that we were trying to run operations out of the white house, and you need one operational place with a senior official responsible for that populated by all those experts and making sure that we are accountable here at the white house to the president, as he said in his statement, but also to the policymakers.

the operational gap is the one that i think is the most urgent. >> this is about communications. is it illegal for a family to make a payment to its board terrorist organization? >> i'm not going to -- i am not going to make legal analysis. the justice department statement that was issued today talks very clearly about the confusion that many families felt because of the statute which does make it illegal for anybody to provide material support in the form of money, guns, you name it, to a designated terrorist organization. the justice department also said that they have never exercised their prosecutorial discretion to use that statute to prosecute

friends or family members of hostages. >> the foley family has told us over and over again that they were threatened if they attempted to make any kind of a payment, they would be prosecuted. when they make that sa -- wouldn't that make sense is why they wouldn't? >> i understand that the families say they were threatened and it is something that should not have happened, which is what the president said , which is what officials from the justice department told the families yesterday, and that will not happen in the future. >> the president said that the u.s. government policy will remain the same because he said ransom risks endangering more americans and funds terrorism. but ransom money is ransom money, whether paid by the

government or by individual families. doesn't this announcement today risking injuring more americans overseas? >> i understand that critique. the u.s. government policy has no concessions -- that is ransoms, other policy concessions, other issues that could be on the table. whether it is money, vast resources, or a policy concession or change, not to take some action -- all those things would be in the realm of the u.s. government concessions that are simply not on the table and will not be on the table. >> that money -- the president said that it helps fund these terrorist groups, so providing that money -- doesn't that ultimately put a price tag on americans' heads? >> there is no doubt that the

payment of ransom fuels the very activity that we are trying to stop, which is why that the u.s. government has worked in urged other governments internationally to not pay ransom. at the same time, we have a responsibility to stand with families as they make the most different -- the most difficult decision they can imagine. the president said they won't abandon them. >> a few quick items -- can we say how many american hostages are being held abroad right now? >> over 30. >> this fusion cell that has been described -- you referred to it in operational terms. if this should determine the case of a hostage whether rescue as possible, will that sell have the ability to order an immediate rescue operation

without getting it signed off on by the president, and under what rules of engagement will the individuals dispatched by this cell operate? >> i'm not going to speak to the hypotheticals about operations, but what is true is that the cell, comprise of law enforcement, diplomatic, military, and intelligence personnel, will develop that strategy will combine all the intelligence that will drive that strategy, whether it is a diplomatic or law enforcement one. a decision, depending on the nature of that operation involves sending our military service members harm's way, then that will be done by the president on the recommendation of his military chief. >> du acknowledge that part of the problem here, part of the reason by a review like this ultimately became necessary, was because the obama administration

had been sending very bad, mixed messages? for example, hostages and the bergdahl case? threatening families with prosecution? >> i would challenge the premise of your question on some of them, with specific reference to hostage swapping. what i will say -- and the president set it to the families -- we did not do right by these families. that is what we are here to set right, and to try very hard to rectify that and put in place processes where we will do better in the future. >> ok. thank you. >> coming up tonight on c-span, bobby jindal announces his candidacy for president.

then, the house oversight and government affairs committee holds its second hearing on the opm data breach. later, another chance to see president obama's remarks on a change in u.s. hostage policy. on the next "washington journal," megalomania discusses the charleston church shooting, then the debate over removing the confederate flag. ben paul tonko of new york is here to talk about the upcoming supreme court decision, a case looking at whether the epa properly considered cost in determining the power plant commission regulations. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern and you can join the conversation. >> i am not one of those who believes in psychiatric

examination. i believe that most of these people these historians should be on the couch rather than to psychoanalyze people they've never met. on the other hand, when i meet people, i don't judge them, and whether in terms they have firm handshakes but what i try to do is to listen to what they say. you don't learn anything when you are talking. you learn a great deal when they are talking. >> one of the many tragedies of richard nixon was that he was not very self-aware. nixon did have a doctor, an intern who said he was careful not to make them think he was analyzing him. mix and went to him because he had psychosomatic illnesses. he couldn't sleep, and he gave him some mild therapy.

but even though he went to one he hated psychiatrists. he was afraid, and a way, of looking at himself in a realistic way. he once said "i don't carry grudges" -- hello? he was one of the great grudge carriers of all time. you could be very unsolved reflective -- unself-reflective. >> he talks about the victories and defeats and inner turmoils of richard nixon, opus thing on personal stories. sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on "q&a." >> louisiana governor bobby jindal officially announced his candidacy for the 2016 republican residential nomination, wednesday near new orleans. he is the 13th major candidate to enter the race and made his

announcement with a video on twitter before the event. this is 30 minutes. >> thank you. thank you all so much for that warm welcome. i have the great pleasure today of introducing you to a very good friend of mine. he's a tremendous husband and father and a great leader of our state and for our country. [applause] you know i would say all of that stuff. and you knew i would mention his crazy long raez may of accomplishment. but what you may not know is why bobby is so successful. it is not because he's smart and oh, so good looking. it is not because he's well-educated.

no, the key for bobby jindal is that he's absolutely fearless. [applause] of course, the fact that a man would send his wife out on live television to say whatever she wants about him, that by itself is a little fearless. bobby was fearless when he first decided to run for governor at the young age of 31. there were already a dozen candidates. he knew he would start out as an asterisk in the polls and he did. but he went all over the state and talking and listening and laying out detailed policy plans to move our day forward and on the day of the primary, he got more votes than anyone else in the race. [applause] it took someone fearless to do

that. and it took someone fearless to lead our state through the after math of katrina. people were moving away in droves. our largest employers contemplating closing up shop. but bobby stepped up. he was fearless in taking on the corruption. he was fearless in challenging the status quo of our broken education system. he was fearless in cutting taxes and refusing to taking the easy way out by raising taxes. most importantly, bobby takes on problems head-on. while others tap dance, he tells the truth. while others worry, he leads. bobby's courage has changed louisiana for the better.

of course, i have to tell you a little bit about month the more personal side of his fearlessness. i got to know bobby in high school. he was impressive even then. smart and ambitious. when he asked me out, i told him no. rejection did not deter him. he was fearless. he did not stop. and years later, i finally said yes. and like the state of louisiana, i am oh, so glad i did say yes to bobby jindal. bobby knows that our nation has great problems. but that our people are greater still. where others see obstacles bobby sees opportunity. where others see division, bobby sees a path to unity. bobby jindal is the right person to do the hard things and to

fight for what is right. [applause] he is the right person to solve problems, not just talk about them. i am very proud of my husband. on behalf of our daughter sealia, or son sean and slade i'm so proud to introduce him to you today. please join me in welcoming my husband and my best friend bobby jindal. [applause]

>> my name is bobby jindal. i am governor of the great state of louisiana, and i'm running for president of the greatest country in the world, the united states of america! [cheers and applause] 44 years ago a young couple who had never before been on an airplane, they left their home on the other side of the world to come to a place called america. they had never seen it.

there was no internet to search, but they had heard the legend. there was a place in this world where people were free, and the opportunities were real. they weren't really coming to a geographical place. they were coming to an idea, and that idea is america. to them, america represented all that was good in the world where you could get ahead if you worked hard and played by the rules. place where what matters is the content of your character, not the color of your skin, the zip code you were born in or your family's last name. my dad grew up in a house without electricity, without running water. it was the only person in the family to get past the fifth grade. he and mom came to louisiana because they believed in america and when they got here they found that the legend was true. they found that the people of louisiana accepted them and they

found america is indeed the land of the free and the home of the brave. [cheers and applause] 37 years later, my parents' eldest son became governor of louisiana. it was the aftermath of katrina. our economy was locked in a downward spiral. our biggest city was reeling for 25 straight years, more people had left this state than had moved into it. louisiana was in big trouble. so we had to make big changes. we had to believe in louisiana again, and that is exactly what we did. we worked on our ethics laws. we went from one of the worst

states to one of the best states in the country. we privatized our outdated government-run hospital system. reformed education with nearly 100% charter schools in new orleans and now we have statewide school choice, because every child deserves an equal opportunity for a great education. instead of a child following the dollars, we made the dollars follow the child, because we trust the parents, not the bureaucrats, to make the best decisions for their kids. we did what they said could not be done. we shrank our government. we cut our budget by 26%. we cut the number of government bureaucrats by more than 30,000.

that wasn't easy. the big government crowd fought us every step of the way. they protested. they filibustered. they even took us to court but in the end we won. today we have more people moving into louisiana than out of it. our highest population in history, our kids are coming home. and now we have more people working than at any time in our state's history, with the highest incomes in our state's history. job for your family. paycheck in your mailbox. they're the ultimate proof that your state is doing things right.

but of course there's another side to the story. the big government crowd, they hate what we have done. they say that we have cut the government more than anyone. the government budgets are always running low on funds with me and the governor's office. my response to the big government crowd is simply this. yes. i am guilty as charged and our state is better off for it today. it's time for the folks in washington to admit the truth. you can't grow the economy and the government at the same time. it is an either/or choice. hillary clinton, she wants to grow the government in washington. [booing] >> we want to grow the real economy out here in america.

here's the key difference. democrats evaluate success in terms of the prosperity of government. we define success in terms of the prosperity of our people. my approach is different from most of the other people running for president. the united states of america was made great by people who get things done, not lots of talk or entertaining speeches. oh, to be sure, there are a lot of great talkers running for president already, but none of them, not one can match our record of actually shrinking the size of government. if great speeches helped our country, we'd be on easy street right now. the guy in the white house today, he's a great talker. we have a bunch of great talkers running for president. we've had enough of talkers. it is time for a do-er.

i'm not running for president to be somebody. i'm running for president to do something. oh, it's easy to talk about the mess that obama has made of our country. every american knows about it. every republican candidate talks about it. that's not even half of what we should expect from our next president. we owe voters more than just a tirade about the problem. we owe them honesty about our solution. i will do the things that you cannot do in washington. i will say the things you cannot say.

i served two terms in congress. i can tell you how it works in washington. if you want to be with the cool kids, you want to be liked by the media, if you want to be invited to the right cocktail parties you have to accept there are things in washington you just cannot do. they say you cannot reduce the size of government or the number of bureaucrats. you might be able to cut the rate of increase here or there but you cannot actually cut government spending but we can and we will! [cheers and applause] they say the $18 trillion national debt can't really be addressed. just a part of doing business so it's better not to talk about it, but we can and we will.

they know social security and medicare are going bankrupt, but they're afraid to do anything about it. they denied the math and pretend everything is fine but we can reform and save these programs and we will. in washington, they say term limits is a quaint idea, that we are naive to believe in. they think we need a permanent class, a ruling class of elites. it's safer to not rock the boat but we can rock the boat and we will rock the boat! [cheers and applause] in washington they know they want the borders secure but they refuse to do it but you and i can, and we will secure our borders. [cheers and applause]

finally, they say we can't really repeal or replace all of obamacare, but i'm the only candidate who has written a replacement plan, a free market plan, that focuses on reducing cost. we can repeal obamacare and we will repeal obamacare. [cheers and applause] today's republican party in washington, d.c., has been beaten into submission, is increasingly afraid to speak the truth. it's time to say what everybody's already thinking. the emperors in washington they're not wearing any clothes. in case it's not clear right now, i am running for president without permission from headquarters in washington, d.c.

[cheers and applause] i am tanned, rested and ready for this fight. here's the truth about most politicians. they're selfish. they're followers, not leaders. they worry more about their own fate than the country's fate. they take polls, figure out where the public is headed. they run out front, they pretend to be leading the parade. it's easy to be a popular politician. don't rock the boat. kiss a bunch of baby, cut ribbons, don't make big changes but i'm not going to take the easy way out. if you want somebody who is just

going to pretend that everything is fine, just make some small tweaks, then you want somebody else. i'll make this promise to you, i will never leave from behind. i know some believe i talk about my faith too much but i will not be silenced. i will not be silenced in order to meet their expectations of political correctness. they don't seem to accept that idea you can be both intellectual and christian. they can't fathom the notion you can be both smart and conservative. they need to get out more.

there's a big country out here with millions of americans who believe in god and are not ashamed to say so. i'd be wary of a president who didn't seek wisdom from the almighty. i don't know about you. i've met many smart people who lack wisdom, yet christianity, it is under assault today in america. the liberals, they have forgotten their history. religious liberty is not some quaint notion from the past. it is fundamental to our freedom. that's why there's protection in the first amendment to the constitution. i'm going to say it slowly so even hillary clinton can understand this.

america may not create religious liberty. religious liberty created the united states of america. and it's time we stopped trying to divide ourselves against each other. hillary clinton is always trying to divide us by ethnicity, by gender, by economic status. i don't know about you but for me i'm sick and tired of people dividing americans. and i am done with all this talk about hyphenated americans. we are not indian-americans, african-americans, rich americans or poor americans.

we are all americans. and while i'm at it, here's another thing you're not allowed to say but i'm going to say it anyway. we cannot allow people to immigrate to our country so they can use our freedoms to undermine our freedoms. that is exactly what has happened in europe, where they have second, third generations of immigrants who refuse to embrace the values and culture of the countries they have moved into. we must not let that happen here. it is not unreasonable to demand if you want to immigrate to america you must do so legally.

you must be ready and willing to embrace our values, learn english and roll up your sleeves and get to work. [cheers and applause] now let's do something different, let's tell the truth about our political situation. that's right, it is a mess. republicans must stop being afraid to lose. if we try to hide who we are again, we will lose again. you've heard jeb bush say that we need to be willing to lose the primary in order to win the general election. we're going to help them do that.

let me translate that. i'm going to translate that political speak into plain english. what jeb bush is saying is that we need to hide our conservative eye keels, but the truth is if we go down that road again, we will lose again. let's do something new. let's endorse our own principles for a change. let's boldly speak the truth without fear. [cheers and applause] as republicans, we've already tried to appease the left. to make the media like us better, to talk in politically correct language, to hide some of our beliefs by calling them distractions, we've tried to mask our conservative ideals and we have failed. every republican will tell you they are for school choice, shrinking government, cutting the government workforce and

getting rid of common core. but talk is cheap. talk is just talk. i haven't just talked about these things i've actually done these things. every republican will say they will fight to protect the unborn, repeal obamacare, secure the border and describe isis. i won't simply talk about these things, i will get these things done. it's time to level with the american people. this president and his apprentice in waiting hillary clinton are leading america down the path to destruction. economically, culturally, and internationally. for the most devastating thing they try to do, is redefine the american dream. instead of their dream being to have opportunity and freedom to control your own destiny, to make your own way, their dream

is for the government to take care of you, to make people dependent on the government. we want to guarantee quality of opportunity. they want to guarantee equality of outcomes. simple fact is, they are trying to turn the american dream into socialism. now the folks in washington, they may call that the american dream. out here in america, in the real world, we call that the european nightmare. to be clear, we're not simply trying to reclaim the past. no, quite to the contrary, we are laying our claim on the future, a future where america leads the world.

this is not a pause any of us can resist. it is our destiny. it is our mission. as america goes, so goes the world. we are the light of freedom in a dark world. it's time we started acting like it. i will not be intimidated from talking about the fact that radical islam is evil and it must be destroyed. containment is a strategy for losers. but as general george s. patton famously observed americans play to win all the time. americans don't play to lose. president obama has it wrong. secretary clinton has it wrong. our allies need to trust us. our enemies need to fear us. it is time we play to win again! [cheers and applause]

as president, i will have four objectives. i will secure our border ss. i will replace obamacare with a health care system that focuses on reducing cost and restoring freedom. i will grow the private sector economy by shrinking the size scope and reach of the federal government. and i'll rebuild america's defenses and restore our standing on the world stage.

i'm not asking you to simply join my campaign. i'm asking you to join a cause. if you're looking for a candidate who will politely manage america's descent into mediocrity, i'm not your man but if you are chasing a dream looking for a land where the people are free, and the opportunities are real, i am asking you to believe. my dad told me as a young child that americans can do anything. i believed them then and i believe it now. i know in your heart, you believe it, too. i am asking you to believe again, believe in what we can do, believe in what america can do. thank you. may god bless you.

may god bless the united states of america! [cheers and applause]