you assume these high investment returns, he gets the accounting system the illusion that investment risk is going to pay for the plan. when the market crashes, that is when they get these big holes in the plan. they don't make that annual payment regularly. we see that in new jersey and illinois. so i think the state should be making good on these promises. greta wodele brawner: we have to leave it there. the house is about to gavel in. eileen norcross, thank you. we now bring you to the house floor. thanks for watching live coverage here on c-span. washington, d.c., july 9 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable david g. valadao to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate .

the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. one of the most difficult and challenging situation any family faces is dealing with circumstances surrounding the end of life. earlier this week, n.p.r. ran a fascinating story on a little known fact that physicians die differently than the rest of us. they are more comfortable, they're more likely to spend their final days surrounded by loved ones. they seldom die in an i.c.u. or in a hospital setting. that's because doctors understand what works and what doesn't. doctors are very clear about their wishes, and they choose

quality of life and concern for their families as well as their own well-being. i've been working in this area of end of life for more than six years. the ways and means committee unanimously approved my legislation and amended it as part of the affordable care act to provide greater support for families with that decisionmaking process. it did pass the committee unanimously. part of the affordable care act, even despite the 2009 lie of the year about death panels, on the strength of some of the most compelling testimony that were delivered, not by expert witnesses but by members of the committee. one of our republican members discussed how his mother didn't get the care that she needed at the end of life. another physician member of the committee explained how he had these conversations repeatedly, but unfortunately they were often much later than they should have been.

there wasn't adequate time for the family to prepare. well, there's been a sea change on this issue, in part because of rising public awareness. support for our bipartisan legislation, the personalize your care act, which i worked on for years now with dr. phil roe, has made great strides forward. we've had advocates like dr. bill frist, former republican leader of the senate, who spoke eloquently and forcefully about the helping families under these trying conditions. the reverend billy graham has written how it's christian responsibility to take this on for ourselves and spare our loved ones' uncertainty. a doctor published a brilliant book "being mortal," which quickly climbed to the best-seller list for "the new york times" and a 500-page report about dying in america

that talked about the problems and opportunities to provide more choices and protect people's wishes. yesterday was another important landmark when the administration published a proposed fee schedule for next year in which they've assigned an activity code with payment for advanced care planning. now, of course this is merely a proposal and they're still seeking comment but it's a historic step forward for a decision that will be finalized this fall. it's another indication that we can and will do a better job of meeting the needs of american families under the most difficult of circumstances. we will make sure americans have all the information they need to make the right decisions for themselves and their family and to assure those decisions, whatever they may be, are honored and enforced. medicare will pay for thousands of expensive medical procedures and now for the first time the

government is placing a value on this important conversation between a patient and their chosen medical professional. now it's the job of the rest of us to do our part. who will speak for us if it we're unable to speak for ourselves, and what will they say? the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. jolly, for five minutes. mr. jolly: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, most economists and financial advisors have recognized that families across the united states are headed towards a major retirement crisis. studies have shown that a majority of households headed by someone age 59 or younger are in danger of suffering from falling living standards in their retirement years and so the administration and this congress should be advancing policies to make retirement counseling, savings advice and investment services more accessible, not less. retirement planning, savings counseling and investment

advice can improve the quality of life and economic stability of every american. yet, recent actions by this administration, however well-intended will make these financial services less accessible and less affordable to those who are in most need of them. by forever changing the rules regarding financial advising related to retirement accounts. mr. speaker, for years the community of financial advisors, including those throughout pinellas county and those i represent, has been governed by the suitability standard. that is financial advisors are required to provide financial counseling and investment recommendationes that are suitable for a client based upon that client's financial position and financial goals. the suitability standards requires advisors to act fairly in dealing with clients. this suitability standard has served individual investors well for many years, creating a market for financial services for new and low-dollar investors seeking basic investment services and thoughtful financial and retirement planning.

but the administration is now in the process of replacing that standard with a new standard called the fiduciary standard. this new standard under the guise of protecting investors will actually have the opposite effect. the administration's proposed rule will ultimately reduce or in some cases eliminate financial counseling products and services to new and low-dollar investors. the rule will result in the elimination of financial products that adequately compensate advisors for their services, and it will increase the cost of compliance on advisors who ultimately will need to pass on those costs to clients through a higher fee structure and it will cost some advisors. but worst, mr. speaker, the department of labor's new rule reflects the approach that we see from regulators throughout this administration, an arrogant and demeaning suggestion that industry throughout america is necessarily comprised of all bad actors, and unless these actors are forced to do so by

this administration, they will no longer do right or do good but for the heavy hand of government and the heavy hand of this administration making them to do so. it is a washington knows best approach that communities across the country continue to reject. the administration can do better. do not issue the new proposed fiduciary standard rule. members of congress from both sides of the aisle have sent letters to the department of labor expressing the negative impacts this proposal will have on their communities and we have begged the department of labor to revisit this rule and simply do better on behalf of the american people. congress has also taken action on its own and will continue to do so. recently the appropriations committee included provisions within their respective bills in the house and senate to halt the administration from moving forward on this perhaps well-intended but completely wrong proposed rule. it was right that we did so. the administration simply must do better. it starts with recognizing that

the financial advisor industry is comprised of men and women across this country who provide a valuable contribution to individuals and couples seeking retirement guidance. and let's realize that transparenty and sunlight can -- transparency and sunlight can help. it results in needless and expensive litigation and ever more trial attorney fees and will ultimately eliminate financial counseling to thousands of families who need it the most. well mr. speaker, that is the wrong answer. let's keep the suitability standard. let's trust financial advisors for the good service they provide. let's strictly enforce the current law against the very small number of individuals who seek to take advantage of individual investors. let's protect financial services for those who need them most and let's revisit a rulemaking process that focuses only on transparency. ultimately providing consumers and clients with the information they need to make responsible investment decisions and to responsibly

select a financial advisor that is right for them. it is time that this administration begins trusting the american people. thank you mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for five minutes. mr. gutierrez: for the record, i'm not mexican, i'm not an immigrant. given the rhetoric of one of the leading republican candidates for president, it's important to point that out at the start before i'm accused of being a criminal, a drug dealer or a rapist. to be fair, donald trump didn't say all latinos or mexicans are rapists. just the vast majority of mexicans immigrants are drug dealers or rapist. mexican immigrants working in

the united states, it should be the owner of hotels. but he is not basing this on personal knowledge. trump says that most of the women coming from central america to the u.s. through mexico and other countries report being sexually assaulted. on this point, he and i have some agreement. women and children at the lowest wrung of our economic and social ladder are incredibly vulnerable to sexual assault and rape, but from saying most undocumented women are vulnerable to assault and saying most undocumented men are rapists is, as he might say himself, huge. the documentary on pbs "front line," "rape in the fields" was a powerful expose on how immigrant women are regularly victims of rape, abuse because perpetrators recognize how vulnerable immigrant women are. they are afraid to talk to the police afraid they will be deported and afraid they will lose their children and this fear to report crimes makes us

all less safe. yes, the rape and abuse is sometimes perpetrated by other latino immigrants. perhaps even mexicans. but these crimes are also committed by men of all colors including red, white and blue americans. so when donald trump says on cnn, well, someone is doing the raping, is further evidence we should be building a big wall so he can laster his name on it and keep im-- laster his name on it and keep immigrants ons its clear donald misses the point. the question is how do we create an immigration system that allows people come with visas and not smugglers so their work is honored, safe protected by oir labor laws? how do we make sure that the work remembers not afraid to dial 911 and report assault when someone, anyone is threatening them or their families? now, the anti-immigration wing of the republican party in this body and on the air is saying that trump may have a point. after all, a beautiful, innocent woman was shot in cold blood by a mexican immigrant in

san francisco just last week. why wasn't he deported? why wasn't he held in jail the last time? why is -- and you will actually hear this on fox news. why is president obama letting mexicans kill beautiful young american women? as the father of two daughters, about the age of kate, the young woman who was shot and killed, i pray every night that no one of any racial ethnic background ever does my daughters harm and i can only imagine the grief that her family is feeling. when we have felons in federal custody or state or local custodies with warrants for drug crimes who get deported and come back, we are not doing our job. they cope with decades of inaction on immigration criminal justice and a range of other issues. i have no sympathy for the man accusing this crime. murderers should rot in hail. so what if -- rot in hell. so what if we have a system, people that contributed

productively and they have children and other deep roots in the united states, what if we allowed them to come forward? what if we made them pay for their only criminal background check fingerprinted them, made them prove their identity and check on them ever so often to make sure they're not gaming the system or committing crime? what if we had a system where people came here legally in the first place if they could prove their identity and they had no criminal background? i argue that such a system would allow us to reduce significantly the number of people who are in this company -- country without legal status. it would shrink the size of communities where many people are undocumented, where people are afraid to call the police so that criminals find it easy to blend in and not stick out. such a system would allow us to concentrate our enforcement and deportation resources on real criminals who should be jailed and then thrown out and kept out. such a system would make it easier, make it harder for criminals to hide and easier for honest, hardworking folks to contribute to their

communities without fear. unfortunately that is exactly the system that some republicans have been fighting against. so when a hotel and casino owner gets on his high horse about mexican immigrants about crime and rape and murder, let's think about who is standing between the united states, this country, the one we love and that we've sworn to protect and a modern immigration system based on common sense, compassion and, yes, the rule of law. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. for the past two years my email in box mailbox and phone lines have been flooded with reports of canceled health insurance plans, soaring premiums, increased deductibles, and exasperated constituents trying to navigate the confusing washington bureaucracy that is obamacare.

members of congress have to buy their health insurance on the exchanges along with millions of other americans. i experience many of the same frustrations including the nightmare of navigating a confusing, unfinished website. despite its central promise, the affordable care act it has proved to be anything but affordable for many north carolinians, and the supreme court's recent decision in king v. burwell doesn't change that fact. house republicans are continuing our efforts to minimize the damage caused by obamacare. we have passed legislation that would permanently repeal obamacare's 2.3% excise tax on medical devices which has hindered innovation as well as restricted growth and job creation in an industry that has improved the quality of life for millions around the world. we voted to repeal the independent payment advisory board which was created under

the president's health care law and gives a panel of 15 un-elected unaccountable bureaucrats sweeping authority to slash medicare payment to providers or eliminate payments for certain treatments and procedures all together. the house has passed legislation that would change obamacare's 30-hour definition of full-time employment and restore the traditional 40-hour workweek. from adjunct professors to hourly workers i have heard from constituents across north carolina's fifth district who have one thing in common. their hours are being reduced. obamacare has placed an undo burden on employers and their employees by undermining the 40-hour workweek, which has long been the standard for full-time work. we voted to make it easier to hire veterans by exempting those who already have health insurance from being counted as full-time employees under the president's health care law.

no employer shd be penal eased for hiring a veteran, and no veteran should be unemployed because of obamacare. whoever the best approach to solving the multitude of problems resulting from obamacare is to unite behind a complete repeal of the law and replace it with solutions that lower costs and empoer patients to choose the care that's -- empoer patients to choose the care that's right for them. i recently signed o on to h.r. 2653, the american health care reform act. this bill would repeal obamacare completely and allow a standard deduction for health ensures that treats individually purchased plans and employer sponsored plans the same. making sure that all americans receive the same tax benefits for health care. h.r. 2653 would return decisions about health care and insurance coverage to patients. it is people not government who

can best determine the coverage and services that meet their needs. a government takeover of health care is not what americans asked for and certainly not what we can afford. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, ronald reagan once said where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost. when president reagan made those remarks in 1980 he recognized then what many can't seem to understand now. efforts to undermine unions are an attack on workers' rights. unions have long been the foundation of our middle class and helped create the most competitive work force in the world. the 40-hour workweek minimum wage, six leave, workers comp, overtime pay, child labor laws. those are just a few of the basic labor rights that unions have championed over the years that many now take for granted.

after all the good that unions have done to empower all workers across this country, there's been a recent revival in the war against them and the weapon of choice has been the right to work laws. don't be fooled by the name. the only thing right to work laws do is unfairly allow free riding workers to benefit from union negotiated contracts without having to contribute their fair share in the fight. the laws do not as many supporters proclaim protect workers from being forced to become union members. in fact, federal law already restricts this. in union states workers covered by union negotiated contracts can only be required to pay for the cost of bargaining and not for any other union activities. however, over the last few years there has been an alarming increase in anti-union sentiment. currently half of our states have right to work laws with indiana, michigan, and wisconsin recently passing their own version. in my own home state of

illinois, the governor has made passing right to work a top priority. in fact, he's making this a cornerstone of his first term legislative agenda. the idea behind his right to work law is that by increasing the number of free riding workers, unions will be forced to drastically reduce their budgets weakening their ability to negotiate stronger contracts and defend the rights of american workers. but the evidence clearly shows how misguided this stance is and attacks on organized labor truly are. research shows that seven of the 10 states with the highest unemployment rates are right to work states. on top of that, you know that even if half the counties in illinois adopt right to work laws, we would see the state's annual economic output shrink by $1.5 billion, labor income fall by $1.3 billion. and increase in both racial and gender income equality. so if right to work laws are not actually good for the economy,

what are they good for? right to work laws do a great job at harmling hardworking -- harming hardworking middle class families, and weakening unions. right to work states have seen an almost a 10% decline in unionization which has undermined growth in wages and led to the deterioration in workplace safety n right to work states, wages for all workers, not just unionized workers, are over 3% lower than wages in nonright to work states. that's about $1,500 less per year in the pockets of teachers, firefighters nurses, and other hardworking americans. furthermore, unions and injuries and deaths in right to work states are much higher than nonright to work states. in the high-risk environment of construction where unions have played a fundamental role in demanding adequate safety standards, deaths are 34% higher in right to work states than nonright to work states. you can see right to work is not

right for our country, not right for our states, and not right for our workers. you can right to worker as a strategy to lower wages and attract more businesses is not a suitable and sustainable strategy. instead of focusing on attacking unions and middle class workers governors should focus on fixing broken budgets and investing in our schools, public safety programs, and transportation systems. that's the real recipe for economic success. so let's stand up against right to work laws and stand up for the right to organize, the right to a safe job and the righto a fair wage. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. gibbs, for five minutes. mr. gibbs: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today to honor dr. peter schramm at asher university in ashland ohio. the center support 8 supporters and friends gathered to recognize him for his years of

service and name the library in his honor. he's been teaching political science, mentoring sthuents, and shapings the minds of few turn teachers and lawyers. he was a young boy living under the soviet regime. when he was 10 peter's father decided it was time to leave hungary and come to america. peter asked his father why he chose america and he was told we were born americans but in the wrong place. after leaving hungary, the family found their way to california thanks to an american dentist his father methortly after world war ii. just a few american dollars, his family started a new life. his parents found work and peter and his sister went to school. peter did not know english and had to learn along the way with the help of his classmates. eventually they saved enough money to open a restaurant. the whole family worked there. peter tened his stuties -- studies and worked through

college. he was he was unaware you had to graduate. he was content to learn for the sake of lerk. years later he once said i think it is true that human beings by nature desire to know. his economic veracity led him to claire month for his masters and doctorate degrees. it was there he studied the classics. when he began teaching, he insisted on open discussion encouraging and directing debates among his students. he once said, a good education is a conversation. he didn't want to lecture his students and he believes a classic liberal arts education should teach students how to read, analyze, and explain and defend their beliefs. the ash brook center where he served as the executive director and senior fellow of the scholar program states their mission is to restore and strengthen the capacities of the american people for constitutional self-government. having witnessed the corruption horror of soviet rule he was

able to impress on his students how important the mission and values are. one of the most recent students interned in my office told me that dr. schramm has dedicated his life to preserving and perpetuating american greatness by teaching us what it means to be an american. that many of us he has taught will continue his work and honor his legacy by educating future generations of what makes america great. dr. schramm, who is battling an aggressive illness, can be assured the principles of self-government of free men with free minds and values of our founding fathers are alife -- alive and well in the generations of students he talked. on monday evening he said despite his medical condition no man has been happier than he has been. thank you for adopting america as your home and teaching so manyoung minds to keep the flame of freedom burning. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, for five minutes. mr. butterfield: mr. speaker, i

rise to express the utter outrage of the congressional black caucus regarding the calvert amendment which is scheduled for later this afternoon which is an amendment to the interior appropriations bill. that amendment would allow confederate imagery to remain on graves on federal land. don't replicans understand that the confederate battle fl is an insult to 40 million african-americans and to many other fair-minded americans? the confederate battle flag, mr. speaker is intended toefend a dark period of american history. a period when four million blacks were held as slaves. held as property, as chattel not as human beings. the aves were bought and sold and mortgaged and gifted as chattel, andhis period, mr. speaker, this period of inslavement continued for more than 200 years and did not legally end until december 6

1865. here's thery, mr. speaker. following president lincoln's election in november of 1860, 12 southern states ceded from the union in response to their belief that president lincoln would free the four million slaves. south carolina was the first state to de from the union on december 20, right after lincoln's electio these southern states formed the confederate states of america. they empowered a military elected a president, adopted a constitution, adopted a currency. they engaged in a brutal, brutal civil war with the union. thousands of lives were lost on both sides of the battle and is flag, mr. speaker, this confederate battle flag, was their symbol. it was their flag. the southern states lost the war. the states then rejoined the union. president lincoln then proposed

a 13th amenent legally ending slery. that amendment mr. speaker ssed this congress on january 31 1865. finally it was ratified by georgia on december 6, 1865. and during the period of ratification, president lincoln was assassined. for the next 50 years,0-plus years, every black person living in the south faced the possibility of lynching. more than 4,000 blacks were lynched between 1890 a 1950. 136 black people were lynched in soutcarolina. but there are some now who want to continue to honor slavery and hon your bigotry -- honor bigtry. this house must not be complicit. the shooting in sth carolina was an example of a 21st century lynching.

the man festo left by the charleston killer stated, quote, i have no choice. im not in the position to go to alone go into the ghetto and fight. i chose charleston because is the most historic cy in my state and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to whites in the country. he was right. 57%. . we have no skinhea, no k.k.k., no one doing but taing on the internet. well, someone has to have the bvery to take it to the real world, and i guess that has to be me. end of quote. mr. speaker bigotry continues to exist in this country. this congress should not pass any legislation today or any other day that would embolden the who continue to hold racist beliefs. the calvert amendme, the calvert amendment is misguided and it emboldens bigotry. i ask my colleagues, democrat

and republican, respectlly, let's defea the calvert amendment this afternoon and even if the gentleman would consider to withdraw his amendment a not put this ouse through this turmoil today. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempo: the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, for five minutes. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday in the terrible atck over 200 people were killed across these united states. this headle should lead every tv news show, hit the frot pages and generate outrage from acrosthe country, but it did not appear. now, this not make-believe the news is real, but no one reported it. wee more tn 80,000 people a year n to suicide and drug addiction ordose. that's over 200 people a day.

where is the news? now, these are the suddennd tragic deaths. then tere are the slow-motion deaths which can he can't even count those who have a mental -- which can't even count. those who have a mental illness or a chronic illness such as diabetes or heart disease and face that slow-motion death sentence. in fact, people with serious ental iless tend to die 25 years earlier than their cohortand tn there are the mentally ill who are victims of attacks. st week the "washington post" revealed how in the first six months of is year a person who was in mental health crisis was shot and killed every 3 hours by police. the vast majority were armed but in most caseshe police officers who shot them were not responding to reports of a crime. more often they were called by lativ neighbors or other bystanders worried that a

mentally frale person was behaving erratically. the crisis built and it ended in death. further, the mentally ill are more likely to be the victims of violence, robbees eatingand rapand other crime these individuals are also 10 times more likely to be in jail than in a hospit. if you're a minority chances e your mental health treatment com in a prison not in a mental health center. have we become so numb we no longer notice? are we so numb we no longer care? tragically government tries to help but frankly it's a mess. the chaotic patchwork o current government programs and federal laws make it impossible for those witsever psychosis, schizophrenia and serious mental illness to get care. for example, when someone is haunted by deleer yum and hallucinatio and dsn't know they're ill they frequently stop taking their needed medication. they don't follow up on appointments and their health

declines. our federal laws preven a caregiver from getting their loved one tohe next appoiment or to folw up on their car we need to provide treatment before tragedy and get these inviduals help before their loved ones dial11. e helping families and mental health crisis act, h.r. 2646, provides millions of families the tools needed for effective care. h.r. 2646 empowers pares and caregivers to accessare before the mental illness hes the most severetage. t fixes the shortage of in-patient beds so patients in mtal health crisisan get proper re, not be sent to a jail not tied to an emeency room gurneynd not sent home. it helps reach unrserved and rural populations. it expands the mental health work force. it drives evidence-based care. it provides alternatives to institutionaation. it integtes primary and havioral care. it increases physician volunteerism. it advances critical mel research, brings accountability to mental health and substance

abuse parody and it also provides crisis intervention grants f police offers and firstesponders. this training helps law enforcement officials recognize individuals w have a serious mental illness and learn how to properly interve. my bill eliminates wasteful and ineffective proams an directs money where it is ed first. itocuses on serious serious mental illness rather than behavioral goodness that have no gd results. mybill helps communities adop programs to stop the revolving door of mental health crisis violence, incarcerations, e.r. visits and abanned on ement. this bipartisa legislation now with more than0 co-sponso, marks a new wn for mental health in america. i urge my colleagues to join me in this effort by co-sponsoring the helping filies of mental health crisis act,.r. 2646. let's no longer turn a blind eye andnstead help tse tha need it the mo.

whether the st road or the slw road, the 200 -- the 200-plus deaths per day, the 80,000 dths per year, an unown number of victims is far far too often. compassion calls us to act and act now. the cost of delay i deadly. fo those families who are suering, how can we look them in the eye andefend our delays to act? i yield back. e speaker pro teore: t chir recnizes thgentlen from maryland, mr. hoyer for five minute mr. hoyer: thank you mr. speaker. ask unanimous csent to revi and extend my remarks. he speaker pro tempore: without objection. hoyer:r. speaker there are daysn this house when morality and the values our cotr as articulated in the declaration of independence and in the constitution of r countr summons us o vote as americans.

as moral representatives and representatives of e values of oucountry. today is such a day, my cleagues. ree demoatic amendments were adoed earlier in the nsideration of the interi bill that would en the practice of diplaying our selling confederate battle flagsnd flag merchandise in national parks and national park service cemeteries. those amendments were adopted by voice vote. they reflect the strong consensus in this country and hopefully in this congress that a symbol of slavery is a digs,

segregation -- sedition segregation has no place in our national parks and cemeteries whose grounds have been hallowed by the veterans who rest there after having served and given their lives in defense of freedom and justice and the values of our country. unbelievablely, however, mr. speaker, several hours ago in the dark of night, the chairman of the subcommittee offered an amendment on this floor that would effectively strike those amendments which surely reflect the values to which all of us have risen our hand and sworn to protect. today on the anniversary of the

ratification of the 14th amendment to our constitution how ironic that we would meet this vote on this day which enshrined the principle of equality for all americans. we have this shameful confederate battle flag amendment on our floor. this amendment would keep in place the policy that allows confederate battle flags in our national parks and national park service sem fares. -- cemeteries. a symbol as my colleague, jim clyburn, the assistant leader, and the chairman of the congressional black caucus, and an extraordinarily representative in south carolina said yesterday was so offensive and hurtful to so many millions of our fellow

citizens and our fellow colleagues in this body. even in south carolina today where the confederacy was born, that flag is being taken down from are the state capitol grounds after both republican controlled houses of that state's assembly voted to remove it. certainly, certainly on this day we ought not to see a republican-led congress move in the opposite direction. my colleagues together, not as republicans and democrats, but as americans deeply committed to the values of equality and justice and opportunity for all , we ought to remove that flag from our national parks, the cemeteries where our veterans

rest, and i would say further, all public places. that includes the united states capitol, and i support my friend representative thompson's resolution that sits now in the house administration committee that would remove the flag of mississippi, which contains the confederate battle flag until such time as mississippiians, as south carolinians did yesterday make a statement and remove that from their flag. i urge my colleagues my fellow americans, the 434 of my colleagues that have raised their hand and sworn to protect and defend the constitution of the united states of america, i urge my colleagues, let us do the right thing and reject this

amendment and send a powerful message about what america truly represents, equality, justice respect for one another freedom for all. let us make america, every american proud of us this day and reject the amendment adopted in the dead of night. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from alabama, mrs. roby, for five minutes. mrs. roby: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today to talk about the negotiations taking place right now in switzerland over iran's nuclear capability. with all that's been going on lately, i fear not enough attention is being paid to what i believe is one of the most important issues facing our

country right now. last week the obama administration quietly announced yet another deadline extension to the multilateral negotiations over iran's nuclear capability. and this week negotiators blew past that deadline once again. of course, the goal for the united states and our allies must be to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. however, recent reports out of switzerland have raised concerns that our negotiators have already conceded too much on major points like uranium enrichment, economic sanctions relief and inspection access. mr. speaker, the very fact that we keep extending the deadline tells you all you need to know about the priorities at play in this administration. it seems like president obama and secretary kerry are so concerned about striking a deal, any deal that they are unwilling to walk away from a

bad one as deadlines keep passing. "the boston globe" reported that negotiators have spent their downtime speculating which movie stars would play them in a hollywood movie about the iran deal. if this is true, americans should be outraged. is this is an extraordinarily important issue that will have an extraordinarily far-reaching effect on this country and the world for many years to come. the fact is we've had extension after extension and concession after concession to the point that i'm not sure a good deal is even possible at this point. a few months ago i traveled to the middle east with the speaker as part of his delegation to the region and we visited countries that would be directly affected by dealing with a nuclear iran -- israel, jordan iraq, saudi arabia.

our allies in the region are rightfully concerned that what is being brokered isn't good at all. we cannot forget how high the stakes are here. if a bad deal is ratified, we aren't just talking about a nuclear armed iran. we are talking about setting in motion a nuclear race, a chain of events that could allow multble countries in this very -- multiple countries in in very volatile part of the world wanting to become nuclear as well. and after seeing the international community reward iran's hostility and city nens with a nuclear deal, who would blame them? mr. speaker, i appreciate the leadership of my colleagues in this chamber and in the senate, and i agree with senator corker that the -- who is the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee who wrote a letter to the president quoting -- and i quote him now. walking away from a bad deal at this point would take courage, but it would be the best thing for the united states, the

region and the world. . we may not be able to control the outcome in switzerland, but we can control how we respond if a bad deal is put forward. this congress can have the final say whether or not to lift sanctions in iran. it can have the final say on the deal itself by way of a resolution of disapproval. i believe members of congress must prepare to stand up and have the courage that it would take to stop a bad iranian deal from happening. for some this will take a lot of courage but it is necessary. we cannot allow president obama and secretary kerry to put their desire for a legacy achievement above the best interests of this nation and our allies. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffreys, for five minutes. -- mr. jeffreys -- mr.

jefferies, for five minutes. mr. jefferies: mr. speaker had this federal battle flag prevailed in war 150 years ago, i would not be standing here today as a member of the united states congress. i would be here as a slave. over the last 150 years we made tremendous progress in this country, but we sell have a long way to go. at the tragic events in charleston, south carolina illustrated, when nine god fearing, church going african-american citizens were killed by a white supremacist there is much work that needs to be done to eradicate the cancer

of racial hatred. when dill -- dylan roof committed this act of domestic terror, his emblam was the confederate battle flag. -- emblim was the confederate battle flak. later today we'll have a vote on the legitimacy of this flag. on tuesday, it appeared that house republicans were prepared to do the right thing in support of three amendments to prohibit the use of federal funds for the purchase, sale or display of the confederate battle flag on national park service land. but less than 24 hours later, house republicans reversed course. in the dead of night, under cover of darkness to introduce an amendment supporting the

confederate battle flag. which is nothing more than a symbol of racial hatred and oppression. there are some in this who is who have made the argument that the confederate battle flag is about heritage and tradition. i'm perplexed. what exactly is the tradition of the confederate battle flag that we are supporting? is it slave re? race? -- slavery? race treason? genocide? or all of the above. the confederate battle flag is nothing more than a symbol of racial hatred and oppression. as i stand here with chills next

to it, because of the red in this flag is a painful reminder of the blood that was shed by africans who were killed when attempted to be kidnapped. and thrown into the institution of slavery. the red on this flag is a painful reminder of the blood that was shed by millions of africans who died during the middle passage while being transported from africa to america. the red on this flag is a painful reminder of the blood that was shed by african-american slaves who were beaten raped lynched and killed here in america as a

result of the institution of slavery. what exactly is the tradition the confederate battle flag represents? we were sent here as leaders. to make decisions on the morality of america. where we are notwithstanding our painful history and the legacy of slavery we have an opportunity today to make a definitive statement, to be leaders p not individuals who cowher in fear -- cour -- cower in fear who are unaware that the south lost the war 150 years ago. let's choose racial progress

over racial poison. let's choose harmony over historic amnesia. let's choose togetherness over treason. let's come together not as democrats or republicans not as whites or blacks, not as northerners or southerners, let's come together as americans and vote down the calvert amendment and relegate the confederate battle flag to the dust bin of history which is where it belongs. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia, mr. jenkins for five minutes. mr. jenkins: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the wyoming county west virginia chapter of students against destructive decisions also known as sadd. the wyoming county chapter has been named the 2015 sadd national chapter of the year.

consisting of 300 members from six different schools these byo message county students work hard to encourage yng people to avoid underaged drinking, drurks and other destructive activities. wyoming county and the sr. rounding area, like many -- surrounding area like many parts of our state and country are limited in the number of youth programs and social services leading to temptations for many teenagers. sadd helps fill the void and is a positive force in helping students make positive life choices and avoid destructive decisions. these students represent our state's values and demonstrate compassion commitment, and courage through their work. i know they will take the skills they have learned in sadd and become the next generation of

leaders in west virginia. i congratulate these students and teachers and thank them for making wyoming county a better place to live. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from minnesota, miss mccall lum for five minutes. -- miss mccal lum, for five minutes. >> you pointed out i'm from minnesota. minnesota governor ramsay was in washington, d.c., shortly after the attack at fort sumter. and he was the first to offer up our support 1,000 minnesotans to keep our union together. minnesota at the battle of gettysburg. a regiment that suffered 82% in casualties. the greatest loss of any unit at gettysburg on a single day.

last night when republican leadership put forward a last-minute amendment that would allow for the display and sale of the confederate flag in our national parks an amendment which we'll vote on today that would allow this hateful symbol which invokes memories of racism and a painful period in our countries past to be displayed on public lands, i found myself shocked, jot reaged, and disappointed -- outraged and disappointed because the people of minnesota sent me here to strive for what they strive for every day. to build a better, stronger america. an america in which we strive to give everyone hope and opportunity that they too can pursue life, liberty happiness and justice.

to the flag that we are taking about is a symbol of a time when african-americans were enslaved, sold as human commodity. it had been used as a rallies crying throughout our history -- rallying cry throughout our history to those who wished to keep or country seggre getted. we a again last month in charleston this flag being used as a symbol for many who carry hatred in their hearts. a man who carried so much hatred he took the lives of nine parishioners because he viewed this flag as a symbol of his belief. this flag should be no point of pride for any american. and we should take this flag down. just two days ago without opposition, as i had the honor of being ranking member as we were doing the interior bill, this body voted to adopt amendments which would prevent

the sale or display of confederate flags in national parks. those amendments were simple, commonsense efforts to place into law standards that the national park service had put forward last month. it was a moment of great pride for me. all those new standards will do is bring the federal government in line with desessions made by many private sector retailers. amazon, wal-mart, sears, disney, and other national retailers have all made the decision to take down this flag because of its racist history. private businesses are rallying behind a commonsense tea significance to stop -- to stop -- decision to stop peddling these symbols. how the republican cax would work to ensure that the federal government alos them to be sold? for who is republicans it appears, perhaps the cost of getting the votes to pass the

entiror, environment appropriations bill, which panders to polluters, is to wrap themselves in a banner of racism. i think that's wrong and i urge my colleagues to stand with people of great courage and great passion to say no to hate no to racism, and yes to america. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the calvert amendment. with that i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i come to the floor today to discuss h.r. 2964, the clear law enforcement for criminal alien removal act. this is a bill that i have had

and have introduced every congress since 2007. we have many members of the body, mr. chairman, who have joined as co-sponsors of this legislation. what it would do specifically is this. it would ensure that state and local law enforcement officials have the tools necessary to help the federal government deport criminal illegal aliens from the united states. my legislation would require the department of homeland security when a state or local law enforcement agency arrests an alien and requests d.h.s. to take custody of that alien to do a few specific things. number one they have to take the alien into federal custody and incarceration within 48 hours. and request that the state or municipality temporarily incarcerate the alien or

transport the alien to federal custody. this would allow them to remove this individual from the country and bar them from coming back. . to reimburse, the federal government to reimburse local and state government and to withhold funds from sanctuary cities. now, we have heard a lot about these issues in the last few days and one of the problems that we have is the sanctuary cities, and mr. chairman, i have for my colleagues a map that was prepared by the center for immigration studies. we now have in this country 200 sanctuary cities and i'm

reading from this map, more than 200 cities, counties and states across the u.s. are considered sanctuary cities. now, what happens in these cities is they choose to work around and to circumvent or not to abide by federal law when it comes to immigration policy. that's one of the reasons passing the clear act is so important. holding them accountable. also reading from the map, i find it so interesting that the department of justice has never sued or taken any measure including denying federal funds against a jurisdiction that is a sanctuary city. on the other hand, we know that d.o.j. actually sued the state of arizona for trying to strengthen its immigration laws. so i would come to the floor today as we talk about dealing

with the criminal illegal alien population and highlighting h.r. 2964. i would ask my colleagues, what does your vote record say about your action? are you strengthening federal law and abiding by federal law, or do those actions strengthen sanctuary cities? do they provide more accountability? is that what you're providing through your vote actions, or is it something that allows a violation of federal law to continue? i think it is imperative that we address the issue of criminal illegal aliens, we address the issue of sanctuary cities and, mr. chairman, i think that it is imperative that we move forward with passage of the clear act by this body. it's a simple bill. i encourage my colleagues to read it. it's 21 pages, and you will

find in there that it addresses these issues that are front and fort most in our minds today -- front and foremost in our minds today and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes mr. clyburn for five minutes. mr. clyburn: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i would like first of all to thank the speaker of this house and the other members who came to charleston last month to help us with the ceremonies for the senator. i'd also like to thank especially my colleagues senator tim scott senator lindsey graham congressman

sanford for joining with us as we stood with the governor of south carolina and called for removing the confederate battle flag from the grounds of the state house. this afternoon at 4:00, as a result of a very definitive vote early this morning of 94-20, the governor's going to sign the bill, and tomorrow morning at 10:00 the flag will be removed from the state house . i regret that i'm not going to be able to accept the governor's invitation and be there this afternoon because around 4:00 this afternoon

we're going to be voting here on this floor. i understand there will be around 25 votes, and 24 of them i might feel all that bad, but one of them i cannot afford to miss because that one -- i might feel that bat missing, but one of them i cannot afford to miss because that one, the calvert amendment, votes taken by this body to join with south carolina, alabama and activities going on in mississippi to get rid of any official application to this

flag the confederate battle flag. now, i think it's important for us to point out that this is not the confederate flag. the confederacy had three flags. this was never one of them. this flag is a flag the confederate battle flag of the army of northern virginia. robert e. lee's army. and when robert e. lee surrendered he asked all of his followers to if you recall this flag. stow it away he said. put it in your attics. he refused to be buried in his confederate uniform.

his family refused to allow anyone dressed in the confederate uniform to attend his funeral. why? because robert e. lee said he considered this emblem to be a symbol of treason. yet, calvert puts up an amendment that we're going to vote on this afternoon to ask us to allow this flag to be sold and displayed in our national parks. i was so proud when the decision was made by the national park service. fort sumpter a national park where the civil war started off the coast of charleston, south carolina, they decided to take

away all of these symbols. but the calvert amendment is saying no, don't take them away. put them back. and we are going to ratify the action to do so. i'm calling upon all of my colleagues to come to this floor this afternoon to remember that it is on this date in 1868 that south carolina, where it all started south carolina was the state that gave the votes necessary to ratify the 14th amendment. to me, a very, very important amendment. full of due process and equal protection of the laws. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida mr. bilirakis, for five minutes.

mr. bilirakis: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it very much. mr. speaker, in march before a joint meeting of congress, the prime minister of israel, benjamin netanyahu, warned history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. as a world leader at the forefront of this crossroad, i believe america has a responsibility to prevent a nuclear iran. an iran with nuclear weapons capabilities would further exacerbate and destabilize the region and would certainly inspire an arms race among other nonnuclear nations. the obama administration's foreign policy missteps does not inspire confidence that the current negotiations will conclude any differently. after numerous delays negotiations are veering

further away from any type of reasonable agreement that would contain iran's nuclear ambitions. i do not trust this administration as it approaches the reversal of a half century of nuclear nonproliferation policy. as chairman royce stated over the weekend, the obama administration's fundamental mystery of the iranian regime is part of what makes this potential agreement so dangerous to our nation -- our national security. the sanctions relief numbers that are being reported now are staggering and will directly undercut years of democratic success. sanctions are a vital tool when working to keep our citizens and allies out of harm's way. in dealing with an aggressive state sponsor of terror there should be no daylight between the position of republicans and democrats in congress nor

congress, with the president or the united states, with our allies. civilized nations must stand united against the destructive output from rogue regimes like iran. as it stands now, the reported details of the deal will not dismantle the nuclear ambitions of the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. if the past is any indication of the future, we can expect that iran will continue to employ its stonewalling tactics, blocking any real transparency or inspections of its nuclear facilities. why isn't iran answering questions asked four years ago by the international atomic energy agency about their past activities? how can we trust a country that won't answer simple questions or allow scientists to be interviewed? how can we set up a sanctions

relief system that is based on trust and verification if the country has proven objectively incapable of trust and transparency? we certainly cannot continue to overlook iranian compliance failures, as reported this week in "the washington post," nor come anywhere close to lifting a successfully firmed arms embargo. these negotiations will have long-term implications on every country on this planet. i believe the united states has a responsibility to stand with israel and other allies across the globe now more than ever. we must ensure our allies know they do not stand alone. with the current negotiations extended once again, it appears that the administration simply wants to get any agreement. this administration, i believe it's a legacy item for the president, mr. speaker.

this administration's willingness to ignore iran's troublesome behavior throughout negotiations does not inspire confidence. president obama promised seven years ago that he would not allow iran to develop a nuclear weapon. he is failing to keep that promise to the american people and the rest of the world in my opinion. the stakes are too high. negotiations are reaching a critical moment as we speak here today. this administration needs to understand one indisputable truth, a bad deal is worse than no deal. i yield back. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. sanchez, for five minutes. mrs sanchez: thank you mr. speaker. -- ms. sanchez: thank you mr. speaker. this year marks the 40th anniversary since the end of the vietnam war and 20 years of normalized relations between the u.s. and vietnam.

and this week our president hosted the general secretary of the vietnamese communist party tron, a political leader but not an official leader. and during that meeting, i know that the two leaders discussed more normalization of economic and military issues and i know that president obama brought up the issue of human rights, but i'm going to say this after 19 years in this congress of fighting for human rights around the world that the vietnamese communist government always promises when economic issues are on the table to do something better with respect to their human rights record but they never follow through. in fact, it gets worse. and so today, as the co-chair of the congressional caucus on vietnam, i don't want to focus on what the economic

implications are and the trade implications are that are going on with respect to vietnam but i want to remind my colleagues about what is happening with respect to human rights in vietnam. . win men is currently serving a known-year prison term after being charged with attempting to overthrow the government under article 59 of the stoogs of that contry. her crime? she was arrested he while taking photographs during a protest against chinese encroachment of the stratly island. a community organizer and contributing journalist for vietnam redemocraticorist news is currently serving a 13-year prison sentence for defending human rights and promoting democracy. he has been charged with

attempting to overthrow the government. he is currently suffering from harsh treatment in prison including torture and dekneel to medical care watt -- denial to medical care, water and food. deng another activist currently serving a 13-year sentence under article 79 in response to advocating for education. imagine this, for education for children living in poverty. for aid to people with disabilities. and for religious freedom in vietnam. he's also a victim of mistreatment and torture in the prison system. tran, a you human rights activist and proor, was alsoared for writing blogs that calendar for political reform and and improved human rights in vietnam. he only peace fle exercised his rights of freedom of expression, yet he was charged with attempting to overthrow the

governmentnd article 79. he has been sentenced to 16 years in prison and five years of house arrest. these are just four of the so many people in prison in vietnam. the government of vietnam continues to deny its citizens the rights to freedom of speech freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion. and although vietnam strives to further its relations with the u.s. it does not grant human rights to its people. so, i understand that president obama has agreed to visit vietnam in the near future, and i strongly urge that not only the president and the administration work on the issues of human rights with respect to the vietnamese people, about that we in the congress continue to patients' bill of rights because as we

know, as americans people around the world look to us as the shining light of upholding democrat is he and whoman rights and freedom and liberty, freedom of the press, and freedom of asemble. i yield back. thank, mr. speaker. soap the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen, for five meant. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. speaker, we are quickly approaching one of the most important deadlines in the recent history of the national security of the united states. the often postponed end of negotiations to halt iran's nuclear weapons program. i support the goal of stopping iran's nuclear weapons ambition forever. and i have grave fears that the united states is headed down a very dangerous path of concession and surrender to a terrorist regime that has had american blood on its hands since 1979, military and civilian. each and every day we need --

read new reports that iranian leaders are systematically moving the goal posts on these important negotiations. let me cite a few examples. first, any prudent agreement would allow no notice enspecials of suspected not just declared, iranian nuclear weapon sites. yet the iranian plarlment has passed legislation banning inspections of their military installations. senior iranian officials have also taken it further declaring i quote, not only will we not grant foreigners permission to inspect our military sites, we'll not even give them permission to think about such a subject, end of quotation. this attitude would make any agreement totally unverifiable. secondly any worthwhile agreement would phase in sanctions relief as the regime proves over time it has complied with all provisions. yet president a hani has declared, i quote, we will not sign any deal unless sanctions are lifted on the same day.

end of quotations. why would we allow iran to boost its staggering economy by providing an immediate capital infusion with which to support their relentless military intelligence and political efforts across the globe? president obama's explanations have been nothing short of baffling. he told national public radio, i quote, who if at all can you prevent aran from using its new wealth over the next several years to support assad of certificatea, to support hezbollah, van hollen toors in yemen or elsewhere? i mean, there's been no lessening of they are support for hezbollah or assad during the course of the last four or five years at a time when their economy has been doing terribly. end of quotation. if that's the point, mr. president. the united states should not throw up its hands and actually allow the iranian economy to be stimulated or have even more money to solidify their place as the world's leading state

sponsor of terrorism. immediate sanctions relief will only provide more resources for them to use and their proxy militias in iraq dominate that country, and advance their goals in syria yemen, and elsewhere. of course they'll have more motivation to do so. the tentative agreement announced in april and everything we have heard and read since then seems to reinforce the lesson that this administration is willing to give away much more in return for nothing in the way of changing their behavior. once again we must never forget that iran has american blood on its hands since 1979. iran has cheated before and is likely to cheat again. yet the administration makes concession after concession to iran, even as iran has violence in syria and iraq and threatens our safety in the middle east

and develops new icbms. my colleagues, iran's nuclear program weapons quest must be blocked indefinitely, including verifiable dismantlement of its weapons infrastructure. they cannot be allowed to remain a threshold nuclear weapon state only to join the nuclear club the moment the agreement lapses. from where i stand and what we know today, we must oppose this agreement. in fact, no deal is better than no deal. mr. chairman, i'd like to yield to the gentlewoman from texas. my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one meant. ms. jackson lee: i rise to follow up, to ask america to be

unified and to be able to have a debate on the floor of the house on a resolution that i offered, 342, and to the gentleman from new jersey, it says enhancement of unity in america. what it speaks to is for this body to go on record for saying that divisive emblems and symbols, swastikas, a rebel flag, a fighting flag, does not even represent the flag most people think it is the confederate flag, this is a rebel flag. to put those away. to educate our children about the excitement of how diverse we are. to be reminded of history of reconstruction. african-americans who are senators and congresspersons. to look at schools who now carry names of people who really might be considered treasonous. to be able to stand on the floor today or next week as those in south carolina did in a civil way so that our children will know that these symbols that divide are not history. and to be able to stand together

in supporting the diversity of america. that is what i stand for. and i stand with houston who is reconsidering many school names at this time. i yield back. i thank the gentleman for his kindness. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. for five minutes. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. overnight house republicans have dramatically and inexplicably reversed their position on taking down terribly divisive symbol the confederate battle flag. while they initially allowed house democratic amendments to remove this symbol from our national parks late last night they allowed an amendment on voice which was challenged and now will be on the floor for roll call later today to keep, believe it or not, keep the

confederate flag as a symbol for sale and for dess play in america's national parks. of course this morning's headlines, scathing headlines tell it all. house g.o.p. takes step back on confederate flag. unbelievable. it's a shame, it's really a shame that house republicans last night, very late last night, without warning attempted to turn back important progress on taking down this terrible and divisive symbol. this of course happens just weeks, days literally, after nine americans were sleighed in an historic black church in charlton -- charleston, south carolina a terrible and tragic massacre committed by an evil individual who wrapped hem self in that very symbol.

and celebrated the hate it stood for. i attended the funeral of reverend pinkney. with other members of congress grieved with that community in they are pain. and saw that community asking themselves a question, why? why does that hateful symbol, that flag, continue to fly over they are state capitol? so on the same day that the south carolina legislature expressed the will of its people and the american people and voted overwhelmingly to take down this horrible symbol, on the same day that south carolina voted to take down that hateful symbol, a member of this house of representatives came to this floor and offered an amendment to preserve that symbol in america's national parks. what a shame. it amazon, wal-mart, sears, all

have taken that symbol out of their stores. no longer sell it. but the republican leadership allowed and would have allowed on voice vote an amendment to stand that would preserve the right to have that symbol sold in our national parks. what a shame. i hope the american people are watching and paying attention to this because it's a moment of truth, i think, for this congress. and i hope and i pray the democrats and republicans, i know the feelings of the democratic caucus we spoke about it this morning, but i hope we'll be joined by republicans on the other side in turning back this awful amendment that would say horrible things about the progress that we hoped that we had made just in the last few weeks. i ask americans to join us. use social media, hash tag take it down. express yourself.

join with us in rejecting this horrible symbol of hate. let's take it down. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for five minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity to address you here on the floor of the house of representatives and being recognized. i have been listening to this debate over the last week or so and it's troubled me considerably to watch divisions being driven between the american people over symbolism that has now been redefined by a lot of members of the opposite party. i regret like all of us do in this country the tragic and brutal and evil murders of the nine people in charleston, south carolina. i pray for them and their families and they stood up and showed us an example of faith that i think surpasses any that i have seen in my lifetime by forgiving the killer. i'm not to that point in my

faith, mr. speaker, at least that i can tell. but that was very moving. and they didn't want to see a division created. they wanted to heal. and they wanted to have -- they wanted to see christ's love come out of charleston. charleston is a wonderful and beautiful city, and i don't know where i'd go to find nicer people if i couldn't go home. i can't say enough good about that. but i have listened to this rhetoric that has poured for the over these days. -- forth over these days. it appears knee it is being turned into something that is division rather than unifying. we unified in our grief with the people of south carolina, the people of as a symbol to be redefined as something different than it's understood by the majority of the american people. i grew up in the north mr. speaker, and the confederate flag always was a symbol of the pride of the south from where i

grew up, my family, my predecessors my ancestors, were abolitionists. they went to war to put an end to slavery. mr. speaker, i have in my -- now in my hand this is a leather bound new testament bible that was carried in the shirt pocket of my great uncle john richardson, and it's written in side here, presented to him on the eve of his departure for the war in july of 1862. . and he walked home three years to the day with this bible in his shoirt pocket, having protected him. it has verses that are written in it. i found his picture, his muss can he tell, his bayonet, his belt buckle and his ink file. that's what's left of this man who committed himself to putting an end to slavery but his cousin, my five times great grandfather, was killed in that effort. many gave their lives to put an end to slavery. as i was standing before

lincoln's memorial reading his second inaugural address and i'll read this into the speaker. lincoln's second inaugural address, march 4,1865. fondly do we hope and pray yet if god wills does it -- by the bondsman 250 years of unrecognize witted toil shall be sunk and every drop of blood shall be paid by another drawn by the sword as was said 3,000 years ago and so still must be said, the judgments of the lord are true and righteous altogether. mr. speaker, these are not disputed numbers. the numbers of americans that were killed putting an end to slavery and saving the union

600,000. another number not disputed, the number of black africans who was brought to now the united states to be slaves, 600,000. i take you back to the words. every drop of blood drawn by the last shall be paid by another drawn by the sword. the judgments of the lord are true and righteous altogether. a huge price has been paid. it's paid primarily by caucasian christians. there are many who stepped up because they profoundly believed that me needed to put an end to slavery. this country has put this behind us. we bend through this brutal and bloody battle. we've gone back together through the reconstruction and we've healed this countries together, and i regret deeply that in a -- that we're watching this country be divided again over a symbol of free country. when i go to germany and they outlawed the swaths can, i say we have the first amendment.

we're open enough. we have to tolerate the desecration of old glory, the american flag. yet we have people saying they're offended by a symbol. they're the ones putting it up for all to say and they're saying we should outlaw that so the american people don't have a chance to see our heritage. everything about america's history is not glorious. everything about our history is not right in our judgment looking back in hindsight, but none of us know what it was like for those that lived during that time and that era. we can accept our history. we can be proud of our history. when unify our history. we can grieve for those who were murdered and we can preserve our first amendment rights. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. green, for five minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, there are seminole

moments in time. the bombing of pearl hashon was a moment in time that will live in infamy. the crossing of the edmund pettis bridge was a similar knoll -- similar knoll moment in time. it was a turning point in the civil rights, human rights movement. there are moments in time. the house of representatives confronts a seminal moment in time. will we allow the healing to continue or will we try to roll back the clock? there are seminal moments in time. if we take this vote, and i hope that we will not -- there's indication we may not -- but if we take this vote,

the taking of the vote itself can be a seminal moment in time. a vote to legitimize the confederate flag the battle flag would be a seminal moment in time for the united states house of representatives. a flag that represents slavery, a flag that represents division . we have come together in this country under a flag that represents unity, one that stands for liberty and justice for all. the flag of the united states of america. this is not that flag. we confront seminal moments in time. in south carolina the south carolina senate and house of representatives stood tall when confronting a seminal moment in time and the confederate battle

flag will be removed. i was so proud to hear a relative, a descendent of jefferson davis, take to the floor of the house of representatives in south carolina and proclaim that the flag must come down. seminal moments in time. we have our opportunity to do that which is right, to do what dr. king talked about when he said, the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice. we can bend the arc of the moral universe towards justice or we can turn back the clock, understanding that this is a symbol that cause loose of pain for a lot of people. this symbol would have

prevented my having an opportunity to stand here if it had prevailed. i call upon all people of good will to please do the righteous thing, not just the right thing, do the righteous thing. how can you possibly vote for this after you saw the relatives of the nine who were killed stand in court before a judge and before the person who was the assailant the person who actually killed people and say, i forgive you? we have forgiven those who have fought to enslave us. we have forgiven. i forgive you. how could you possibly now decide that you will legitimize this symbol of hatred, of

slavery, of a bygone era, of a time when people were not even proclaimed to be human beings in the minds of many? so this is a great opportunity for this house of representatives to answer the clairian call of justice to do as dr. king indicated, to bend the arc of the moral universe toward justice, but it's also something else. it's an opportunity to see where we are. there will be a moment in time beyond this time when someone will look back upon these moments and they will look to see where we stood. where did you stand when you had the chance to stand for righteousness? where were you when you had an

opportunity to vote to recognize justice as opposed to the injustice associated with this symbol? and i leave you with these words. harder yet may be the fight. right may often yield to might. wickedness may seem to rain and satan's calls may seem to gain. but there is a god that rules above to the hand of power and when we are right he will help us fight. i stand against this symbol. i stand for the american flag. i stand for justice. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you mr. speaker. today the terrorist army of isis is stronger than ever. it mames, rapes, pillages, burns and beheads in its zeal to commit religious genocide against anyone who disagrees

with them. isis controls and manipulates the minds of thousands of foreign fighters, including those that come from the united states. this is done arrogantly through american social media companies. the u.s.' answer to the isis threat -- well, let's see what it is. part of the current u.s. strategy is to train foreign mercenaries to fight against isis. it's had a year-long american budget of about $500 million. the program is to equally fund equipment and to train these so-called moderates from syria to fight isis. i call them mercenaries. however, the secretary of defense of the united states carter admitted that even after this one year of training the united states has only trained 60 -- 6-0 -- of these moderate

syrian rebels. if i do my math correctly, mr. speaker, we are spending about $4 million apiece on these 60 fighters to go and fight supposedly isis. this is embarrassingly pathetic. the greatest nation that has ever existed sees isis as such a threat that we're going to send 60 folks to do -- to try to take care of them. ironically there are more americans fighting with isis than we have rebels that have been trained to fight against isis. the united states obviously is not taking isis seriously. isis even mocks the united states and its 60 fighters on once again american social media.

there is more. the president has recently admitted that the united states didn't have a complete strategy against isis. now, isn't that lovely? the question is mr. speaker, is isis a national security threat to the united states? that is the question. that is the question that has to be answered by the administration and by congress. and a decision needs to be made by the administration. it's time for the administration to pick a horse and ride it. if isis is a threat, then we must have a plan to defeat them. then actively implement the plan and defeat isis. mr. speaker, the commander in chief needs to lead. he needs to command or isis will continue its reign of terror in the middle east and other parts of the world and

that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, for five minutes. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. speaker. if there's any doubt in the mind of any person what this confederate battle flag stands for, i urge people not to listen to me. i urge you to listen to the successionists themselves. here's a quote from the declaration of the immediate causes which induce and justify the succession of south carolina from the federal union. it says, this sectional combination for the submergeon of the constitution has been aided in some of the states by elevating to citizenship persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy hostile to the south and destruction of its beliefs and safety. those persons from black

people. that -- those persons were black people. that policy was ending the enslavement of millions of people based on their race. here's a quote from the vice president of the confederacy. i think he can speak authoritatively of what the symbol means. mr. vice president alexander stevens said our new government is founded upon the exactly opposite of the american idea. its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. that is what the vice president of the confederate states said under banners like this one as they were fighting and offering the lives of their own children to maintain slavery. this is what the flag

represents. and i hereby yield the remainder of my time to mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman venged. -- is recognized. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. last night the south carolina house of representatives finally approved legislation to take down the symbol of hatred and bigotry in the darkest time in our nation's history. it's shameful that less than 24 hours after the state of south carolina took this important step for progress and equality, the united states house of representatives would consider an amendment that would allow the confederate flag to be placed in national park service cemeteries. let's be clear. this amendment is a symbol of hate and anyone who supports its being in a place of honor is imposing an insult on anyone who has experienced racism in their lives or believes in america's

founding principles that equality justice, and freedom. 150 years ago, hundreds of thousands of brave soldiers died to save our union and to defeat all the ugly beliefs that the confederate battle flag represents. dr. martin luther king was fond of saying that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. our country has come far since the end of the civil war, but returning this flag to a place of honor would undermine that progress. it's time to relegate this symbol of hate to the duft bin -- dust bin of history. take it down. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: to mr. swalwell. the gentleman is recognized. mr. swalwell: i thank the gentleman from minnesota for leading on this issue. it must be throwback thursday because just yesterday the south

carolina statehouse finally voted to take down the confederate flag. however, today our house republican colleagues, they want a bill, they want an amendment that will put that flag back up. and have -- allow people to salute that same flag across our country and national parks. it is time to finally once and for all take down an ugly flag that is nothing more than a tribute to an ugly past. mr. speaker, let's throw down this flag. let's not throw back to an ugly part of our history. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. elie slon: i yield the balance -- mr. ellison: i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

that -- here's the news from jake sherman from politico saying -- lots of speeches on that on the house floor that just wrapped up and house speaker john boehner just addressed the issue. he just wrapped up his briefing with reporters. here's a look. the speaker: good morning,

everyone. here in the house we continue to get things done for the american people. for example, we passed the first real entitlement reforms since the 1990's. new tools to fight human trafficking, new resources to combat veterans' sue sides and reforms to make our trade agreements better. this week we sent to the president a bill that gets our veterans permanent i.d. card to prove their service. yesterday we passed reforms to help more students get a good education no matter where they're from. and tomorrow we'll pass the 21st century cures initiative to get life-saving treatments for patients who need them. so our focus continues to be on the people's priorities. iran by all accounts still isn't serious about abandoning its nuclear weapons program. when the president -- when will

the president and his negotiators stand strong? we cannot accept a deal that hands iran billions of sanctions relief while allowing it to retain the capability to build a bomb almost immediately. iran is a global menace. iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terror, and i think it's a pipe dream to think that the regime will ever be a responsible partner when it comes to iraq yemen and syria. so i think it's time for the administration to come back to earth. on monday, president obama made a statement it at the pentagon just 24 hours before secretary carter's shocking admission that we're only training 60 syrian fighters. he said no in change in our fight against isis. nothing is going to change, i don't know how we're going to expect to win. president obama i think has to lay out a broad overarching strategy to defeat and destroy these savage terrorists. i've outlined on a number of occasions what in my view an

overarching strategy should look like. we should give our commanders on the ground more flexibility. need to combat isil's use of social media, and we need to engage not ignore, our long-standing allies. we only have one commander in chief at a time. however, it's his responsibility to lead this fight against isil. lastly, on the issue of benghazi and the work of the select committee secretary clinton said and i'll quote, it is the fact that we have released all of the emails that any government relation -- that have any government relationship whatsoever. that's just isn't true. he said, -- she said, sidney blumenthal sent me unsolicited emails. that's not true either. and secretary clinton said, and i'll quote there's no subpoena regarding her email. that isn't true either. all these facts from uncovered

by the benghazi select committee and they were uncovered despite the efforts of secretary clinton and the state department to delay, derail and stop this fact-finding investigation. as chairman gowdy said this week secretary clinton had a statutory duty to preserve these records from her time in office. she had a legal duty to cooperate and tell the truth with congressional investigators requesting her records, going back to 2012. so four americans lost their lives in this terrorist attack. the american people deserve the truth about what really happened. secretary clinton, the state department are prolonging this investigation. they need to stop dragging this out. they need to start cooperating and step up document production so we can get all the facts. frankly, that's not too much to ask. reporter: how is an amendment

to preserve the confederate flag -- the speaker: what our members tried to address the concerns yesterday in a way that was consistent with how the obama administration has handled this issue. i frankly supported the goal of trying to work with all the parties to address their concerns but listen, we all witnessed the people of charleston and the people of south carolina come together in a respectful way to deal with frankly what was a very horrific crime and a difficult issue with the confederate flag. i actually think it's time for some adults here in the congress to actually sit down and have a conversation about how to address this issue. i do not want this to become some political football. it should not. and so i would expect you'll see some conversations in the coming days. reporter: do you think they should be at federal

cemeteries confederate flags? spoirk no. -- the speaker: no. reporter: jared huffman and democrats who did it put an amendment in the appropriations bill, what do you mean it has become a political football? as you know southern members approached leadership saying they'll vote against the interior bill with this amendment. what do you mean political football? it was regular order adopted by voice vote. it was reversed. how is it political football? the speaker: i think when you look at several weeks ago there was a privileged resolution dropped and then there were these amendments, i want members on both sides of the aisle to sit down, let's have a conversation about how to address what frankly has become a thorny issue. reporter: can you tell us what does that conversation entail? is this some sort of special committee, commission? is it the house and senate? the speaker: i have some ideas. when i firm them up in my head

i'll let you know. reporter: mr. speaker, i'm a little unclear what you're suggesting goes on in talks. you have been persistently suspect of what's going on here, but yet if the united states pulls out -- there is no agreement, a lot of people say that is a path to war and is a far worse alternative. are you thinking that is the route we go, we don't have a agreement, then it's military action against iran because we don't have a framework? the speaker: no, i disagree with that entire notion. the fact is that the administration has backed away from their own guidelines that they set up going into this. what they were trying to accomplish. they backed away from every one of them. and i don't -- i'm not trying to stop any deal here. what i'm trying to do is stop a bad deal because a bad deal is going to frankly put in the hands of the iranians a nuclear

weapon. i'm opposed to it. reporter: when you say you disagree with the notion here, are you -- what is it the alternative, why wouldn't there be military action? why wouldn't iran build a nuclear weapon and the united states see -- increased terrorist threats here? the speaker: i think the sanctions put in place ought to go back in place. and make it clear to iran that the world community is not going to accept their development of a nuclear weapon. reporter: the bill has been pulled from the house floor, can you explain your thinking why you did that and what is the -- then the debate on the -- the speaker: i just told you. i believe it's time for some members to sit down and have cafferings about how to deal with this issue in a responsible way. because i believe that members on both sides of the aisle want to deal with it in a responsible way. reporter: speaking on another

issue that's a political football. you said for some time that your party needs to fix the broken immigration system. members of your party have been denouncing the comments of donald trump who is running for president saying that all mexicans were rapists. as the leader of your party, had to call on yesterday and ask the opponent down, what's your message to donald trump and are you concerned about the impact that debate is having on your party? the speaker: i disagree with mr. trump's comments. and frankly i think when you look at the presidential candidates they've all pretty well made their position clear. this has become the biggest political football i've seen in my congressional career. the issue of illegal immigration and what to do with it. as i said last week, it's not going to get resolved by congress sticking their heads in the sand. and if we want to resolve

issues, like we see developed in san francisco and elsewhere we need to get serious about enforcing the laws we have. we all like the laws we have then we need -- if we don't like the laws we have, then we neat to sit down and get it resolved. i'd rather have it resolved sooner rather than later. reporter: will they work on immigration legislation later this year? the speaker: i would hope so. reporter: like what? the speaker: i would hope so. reporter: the conversation you had about the flag, does that extend to any resolution? the committees they've been sent to have no immediate plans to hold any hearings. the speaker: i just think that we ought to address this in a fairly broadway. i got a pretty good idea the kind of members who ought to be part of that conversation. reporter: but mr. speaker, are you saying that -- will there be a vote on the calvert amendment or is that what you're going to discuss? the speaker: no, that bill's going to -- that bill will sit

until we can come to some resolution on this. thanks, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> and following up, rebecca of "the hill" tweeting -- the white house whip update confirms the house will no longer vote on the interior and environment spending today. they had plan to finish up work on the amendments to that bill and one of those amendments would have allowed display of the confederate flag at federal cemeteries. this after earlier in the week the house passing three amendments by voice vote, limiting the use and prohibiting the use of the confederate flag in various ways. so the entire bill has been pulled from consideration this afternoon or final work this afternoon on the house floor. that depe bait last night -- debate last night happening about 8:30 eastern. led there last year by ken

calvert of california who was managing the bill on the floor. lauren gardner of "c.q." saying ken calvert's statement saying, quote, looking back, i regret not conferring with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. also saying, quote, the amendment was brought to me by the leadership at the request of some southern members of the republican caucus. that tweet from laura barron lopez of huffington post. and christina marcos tweets, remarkable that the house debated 100-plus amendments on the interior bill over the course of 13 hours all for the bill to be pulled over the confederate flag. governor haley signing the bill in south carolina this afternoon at 4:00. we'll keep you posted on coverage plans. now live to the house floor. the hou ll be in order thpray w be re b oupln,roy. chaplconr: ts p lo g gi you for giv u another in these most important days in debates here in the people's

house inspire them to work together with charity and enjoy to live in a prosperous and secure future. this week in the wake of celebrating the great blessings bestowed upon our republic, please bless those who serve in uniform wherever they may be. please keep all the members of this congress and all who work for the people's house in good health they might fulfill the responsibility given them. bless us this day and every day. may all that is done here be for your greater honor and glory amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last

day's proceedings and announces his approval. pursuant to clause 1 rule 1 the journal stands approved. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america the pledge of allegiance will be led by mrs. beatty. mrs. beatty: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire rise? mr. guinta: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. guinta: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the land and water conservation fund and its impact on both new hampshire's natural resources and our access to hunting, fishing and outdoor activities. established by congress in 1965, the lwcf provides money

to federal, state and local governments to provide money to purchase water. as granite staters know, we're proud to call this our home. from the seacoast region to the white mountain national forest, outdoor recreation are vital to new hampshire's first district's economy. the outdoor association found that active outdoor recreation generates $4.2 billion annually in new hampshire's economy. supports more than 50,000 jobs across the state and produces $293 million annually in state and local revenue. furthermore, over 800,000 people hunt, fish or watch wildlife in new hampshire each year spending over $560 million on wildlife-related recreation. it's no surprise that the the lwcf preserves our beautiful state. i ask my colleagues to join in

support of this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection. mr. higgins: mr. speaker today 1.5 million americans will be diagnosed with cancer. fortunately innovative research has led to more effective and accessible treatments, however, insurance has not kept pace with the science and cancer patients are paying the price. chemotherapy, previously administered only through injection, is now available for many types of cancer in pill form. today oral chemotherapy represents 35% of all new cancer drugs. however, co-payments for oral chemo can be hundreds or thousands of dollars per month. as a result, patients -- preventing patients from filling their prescriptions. a cancer patient should never be forced to make a treatment decision based on finances. that's why i joined leonard lance to reintroduce the cancer drug parody act to cover

traditional chemotherapy, to provide no less favorable coverage for prescribed orally administered drugs. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort to ensure cans remember patients can receive their treatments their doctors prescribe. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker david keane for 27 years headed the american conservative opinion and is now opinion editor of "the washington times." he wrote as a result of our wars and attempts at nation building in the middle east there is, quote, a generation of young americans who have never known peace, a decade in which thousands of our best have died or have been maimed with little to show for their sacrifices, our enemies have mult lied and our -- multiplied and our national debt has sky rotted. mr. duncan: now we'll spend billions in our o.c.o. account

for afghanistan and other parts of the middle east. this is over and above our regular defense budget. this one-year $82 billion appropriation would more than pay for a six-year highway bill which everyone on both sides say they want. let's stop trying to foolishly rebuild the middle east and start rebuilding america. let's bring all those hundreds of thousands of jobs home. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in the strongest possible opposition to house republican efforts to support hate through the promotion of the confederate battle flag. make no mistake, the confederate battle flag is a symbol of hate and racism. the calvert amendment would allow for the display and sale of this symbol of hate at our national parks and federal cemeteries. that is outrageous. this flag speaks to one of the darkest moments in our nation's history and its display and sale in our national parks is

certainly unconscionable. today our nation still grieves the tragedy in charleston and we remember the nine lives that were tragically cut short by a person whose sole goal was hate and division. the south carolina legislature voted last night in a bipartisan way to take down the confederate battle flag from the state house. likewise major retailers have removed this symbol of hate from their shelves. yet, my republican colleagues want to return it to our national parks and federal sem tears. this is simply -- cemeteries. this simply outrageous. it's past time our nation get serious about putting away not only these hateful similar -- symbols but ensuring justice and liberty for all. it's past time to take it down. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker as a result of the she will energy revolution, america has moved from energy scarcity to one of energy

abundance. this shift is helping to drive economic growth, environmental stewardship and greater energy security. however, without the acceleration of natural gas infrastructure in all regions of the country only a few will benefit. a large interstate gas transmission project has been proposed to bring this affordable, reliable and cleaner energy source to southeastern south carolina and with it the potential of economic growth in some of the state's most economically challenged and rural areas. we are blessed with the natural resources and innovations in technology to be the energy capital of the world which would drive economic growth to new heights. congress must put in place a pragsal and predictable regulatory structures that create a more stable climate for the natural gas industry. i urge my colleagues to support policy solutions that will lead to energy independence and economic growth for america. mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition?

without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we have children to educate. we have children to love and to ask them to understand what america is all about. we are southerners and northerners. we come from the east and the west. we love our cooking. we love our culture but we are americans. and so today i ask this body to allow us to debate this question through a resolution that enhances american unity, that takes the supreme court's statement in walker vs. the sons of the confederate veterans, a texas case, where an argue before the texas motor vehicles early on as a justice arguing against a confederate license plate. we won that case. the supreme court said that public speech that offends or

oppresses some is not allowed. i'm not asking for your flag on your car and your home. what i'm saying is this rebel flag does not represent america, does not teach our children. it does not heal. and i would offer to say that we are long overdufort debate like the senate in south carolina to follow reverend pinkley's words that we have to know how to break the cycle, a roadway toward a better world. he knew that a path of grace involves an open mind an and open heart. i hope we enhance the unity of america, not this. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, on july 14, cincinnati will host the major league all-star game and i want to take the opportunity to recognize a famous one, charles

"chuck" harmon, the first african-american to play for the cincinnati reds. he paved the way for many african-american major league baseball players like frank robinson who credits harmon as helping launch his career. he entered the 1954 season on april 17 as the right-handed infielder with the reds with a .242 batting average during his reds' career, he was known as the fastest player. ohio's second district continues to celebrate mr. harmon's legacy by celebrating his career at great american ballpark at the all-star game 50 years after his first at-bat. mr. wenstrup: and by renaming a street the chuck harmon way and by unveiling a statue in roselawn. thank you, chuck harmon, for your pioneering contributions for breaking the color barrier in our nation's pastime. mr. harmon, your accomplishments will forever be remembered by generations of americans to come and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker i awoke this morning to find news that last night in the wee hours house republican leadership advanced an amendment to allow the display of the confederate battle flag in federal cemeteries and to allow national park service agents to do business with gift shops that sell confederate battle flags. mr. speaker, at a time when south carolina, itself the cradle of the confederacy, has outlawed the flying of the confederate battle flag on their state house grounds, at a time when all americans were horrified at the slaughter of nine churchgoers by an individual motivated by that battle flag, at a time when everyone understands and acknowledges that it is a

symbol of hate we find the house republican leadership wrapping itself in the confederate battle flag. i on or about to this and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, earlier this year i had the opportunity to meet with ambassador david, the u.s. ambassador at large for international religious freedom. he's tasked with leading america's fight against religious persecution throughout the world. this is a significant mandate. mr. hill: especially in the middle east where christians, jewish and minority muslim communities have been settled in the same areas for millennia and they're being uprooted subgaited and murdered. this is not political domination. these rackets of pure unadulterated evil perpetuated

by those of dark and wicked souls. fundamental american values among which are commitments to religious freedom and human rights will always be the cornerstone of this nation's foreign policy. time' a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 1150, the frank wolf international religious freedom act, because now more than ever we need to ensure that former frank -- former congressman frank wolf's landmark legislation is updated for the 21st century. be able to give us the best tools to promote religious freedom around the globe. i thank ambassador saberstein for his work and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. hahn: mr. speaker, i also rise to express my outrage that my republican colleagues in the darkness of the night offered a surprise amendment to allow the confederate battle flag to be

displayed in our national parks and at federal cemeteries. just a couple of days ago this body voted to remove the confederate battle flag from our national parks but my republican colleagues are choosing to raise the confederate battle flag again despite growing opposition by americans who recognize it as a disgraceful celebration of the war rage to prolong slavery in this country. yesterday in a stunning sign of progress, south carolina voted to take down that flag after 50 years of flying it at their state capitol. why do some here continue to insist on defending this painful symbol of racism? this is shameful and in the wake of the devastating murder of senator pinckney and eight others this is a new low for

this congress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? . >> today, we have 10,000 known diseases, most of which are considered rare. however, we only have 500 cures for these diseases. americans can do better than that, and today we have the opportunity to do so. we have a bill that will be heard here on the floor today 21st century cures act which i'm a co-sponsor of and we have the opportunity to help so many people with increased funding and help find some cures and help people sometimes in our own family, people that we know, our friends, with some of the things that we face. finally today, with all the negative press we've got, we have the opportunity to do some thing. again, i ask that this house

approve this bill and i yield back. mrs. beatty: mr. speaker the hope of a secure liveable world lies within those who believe in justice and equality for all. democrats have worked in a bipartisan fashion to ban the display of confederate flags in federal cemeteries and national parks services with doing business with gift shops that sell the confederate flag. the republicans brought out an amendment that would resurrect the confederate flag in our national parks. i was appalled. this led to south carolina's landmark vote last night to take

down the confederate flag. if south carolina can act certainly and surely congress can support our national parks in asking them to not sell that flag. mr. speaker, these are america's parks, and they belong to all people. the nation is watching. don't go down in history as not standing up against violence and racism. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to join me to ensure that we don't fail that -- fly that confederate flag. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentleman seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, last night in the south carolina legislature we saw democrats and republicans join together to take down the confederate flag those with

tears in their eyes and while the people of south carolina move one step past this tragedy many house republicans want to take our nation 150 years ago. we were scheduled to vote on the interior appropriations bill, the bill was pulled because members on the other side objected to banning the sale and flying of confederate flags. i heard the arguments. but it is moral coward is to pretend it is anything but hate and human oppression. the confederate battle flag belong on top our state capitols and shouldn't be sold or displayed. it be longs in a museum of shame along the realics of hate and division that tore our country apart. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada seek recognition? without objection.

ms. titus: sheriff ralph lamb, who passed away on july 3, was one of those larger than life characters who dotted the landscaper. a rancher, he embodied the independent cowboy spirit. he was john wayne and dirty harry all rolled into one. he was a rodeo rider and inspired a tv series and changed the future of las vegas by cleaning up the streets and bringing in the mob. sheriff lamb wasn't afraid of the devil because he always had an angel on his shoulder. he cast a long shadow over las vegas when times were simpler but the stakes were high. our community misses him. i miss him personally. and i look forward to to reading the biography on his amazing life.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from alabama seek recognition? ms. sewell: as a daughter of the south, a representative from alabama, a native of selma, alabama, i have to tell you i cannot believe in 2015, we're talking about whether or not this body would allow on federal grounds, federal cemeteries and federal national parks to display, the selling of this confederate battle flag. there is no denying that our constitution talked about we the people and no denying that this confederate flag is controversial. some see it as heritage and most see it as hatred. i can tell you one thing. we the people, cannot allow on

federal ground, we all pay taxes and our citizens of this great nation. and to allow this flag to be sold, to be displayed on federal land is unacceptable. i really hope that when i gather together 100 members of together -- 10 members of selma, it wasn't a kumbaya moment. rather, i hope we will do we promised this nation and that is represent we, the people, by taking down this flag and not display it on any ground. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker last week, many of us were proudly waving our flag, celebrating 4th of july

and rooting on the successful women's soccer team in winning the world cup. unfortunately, at the same time we were doing that and displaying our patriotism. the company that makes or yeoh cookies and ritz crackers decided that for the first time in 60 years, they would close their plant in the heart of my district laying off over 300 workers because they are shipping jobs to mexico. this is a company that is in no way in financial disarray. in fact, the receive news last year topped $50 billion. that plant that was closed was profitable but not profitable enough. there is good news, i do congratulate their c.e.o., who got a 50% pay increase in the

last few months at the at the same time workers in my district were getting laid off. mr. speaker, it's not right. say no to oreo. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? without objection. mr. price: mr. speaker, we have just learned that the interior appropriations bill will be pulled from the floor today. a number of southern irreconcilable republican members apparently planned to vote against the bill unless it permits the display of the confederate flag in our national parks and permits vendors to sell confederate souvenirs. and i think that is unbelievable. unbelievable after the

unspeakable tragedy in charleston and action in the south carolina legislature necessary to remove the battle flag from south carolina's capitol grounds, but the house republican leadership last night chose to accommodate the southern republican irreconcilables and now they are pulling the interior bill. mr. speaker, we shouldn't have to debate whether a symbol of hatred and ap presentation in our nation's darkest hour should be displayed on federal lands. is the republican majority that out of touch? let us join together, take down that battle flag. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. schakowsky: i heard the republicans have pulled their interior appropriations bill from the floor and i sure hope

it's because they have reconsidered their support for flying the confederate battle flag. overturning an earlier decision of this very body by unanimous voice vote to take it down. last night unbelievably, house republicans acted to uphold the confederate battle flag at the very moment that south carolina was voting to take it down. house republicans rushed to have national park service continue to sell this symbol of hate and to keep the confederate flag flying on federal lands, even worse, house republicans tried to cloak this shadely move by wrapping it in language about our american flag and the m.i.a.-p.o.w. flag. how dare they. sears, amazon and many other retailers have stopped selling

that symbol of hate and that's what a republican state representative in south carolina terfully called it. it is astonishing that the house republicans are so out of touch. we cannot allow this shameful decision. take down the flag. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. win mr. lipinski: mr. speaker a strong nuclear agreement that forestalls iran's nuclear weapons could be positive for regional and national security. however, i fear too many concessions are being made to secure a deal and a bad deal would be worse than no deal at all. we must remember iran sponsors terrorism throughout the region and they are a serious threat

towards our ally israel. and disable their nuclear pursuits and giving them too much to secure a rapid deal will only increase iran's threat. that's why any agreement must have have standards for inspection any time and any place. access to all background under prior military nuclear research must also be in the agreement. limits on centrifuges and enrichments must be there. a breakout time no less than one year and air tight sanctions when iran violates these standards must also be included. anything less should be rejected. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition?

>> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lewis: mr. speaker 50 years ago when we were beaten on the pet us bridge on the march, there were officers of the law when the confederate battle flag on their helmet, when the klan marred in our neighborhoods in georgia, south carolina, countless homes in birmingham was bombed and burned and set fire to churches in the south the confederate battle flag was the symbol of cruelty and injustice, there is no way the federal government should ever display this flag on any federal site or sell it on federal property. it is a symbol of division, a symbol of separation.

it is a symbol of hate. it is -- we must defeat every attempt to return this flag to federal property. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> request permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. clyburn: nine people at mother emanuel a.m.e. church in charleston, many members of this body came to charleston to help celebrate the life and legacy of reverend senator clementa pinckney. i thank the leadership showing

their concern and i think -- thank the govern of south carolina for calling for the removal of the confederate battle flag from the state house grounds. and 4:00 this afternoon she's going to sign the bill passed this morning around 1:30 a.m. by a vote of 94-20 to remove that flag from the state house grounds. tomorrow morning at 10:00, they will remove that flag. i cannot believe that today we have been asked to condone a backward step. why would we in this body do such is beyond me. mr. speaker, i move that we now

adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. clyburn: mr. speaker, i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with 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 theys are 14. the nays are 402. the motion is not agreed . to for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to rule 9 i rise in regard to a question of the privileges of the house and i send to the desk a privileged resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: raising a question of privileges of the house. whereas at 4:00 p.m. today, july 9, the governor of south carolina will sign legislation to remove the display of the confederate battle flag. whereas on december 20, 1860, south carolina became the first state to secede from the union. whereas on january 9, 1861, mississippi seceded from the union stating in its declaration of immediate causes that our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery, the greatest material interest of the world. whereas on february 9 1861, the confederate states of america was formed in a group of 11

states as supported sovereign nation with 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 -- sum ter in charleston, south carolina effectively beginning the civil war. whereas the united states did not recognize the confederate states of america as a sovereign nation but rather as a rebel insurrection and took to military battle to bring the rogue states back into the union. whereas on april 9 1865, general robert e. lee surrendered to general ulysses s. grant at appomattox courthouse in virginia, effectively ending the civil war and preserving the union. . the confederate states of america

used the jack. whereas since the end of the civil war, the navy jack, confederate battle flag has been appropriated by groups of symbols of hate terror and intolerance and supportive of the institution of slavery. whereas groups such as white supremacist groups frighten, terrorize and call harms to groups of people with they have hateful intent, including african-americans and hispanic and jewish americans. along with mississippi house speaker and other state leaders have spoken out and advocated for the removal of the confederacy on mississippi state flag. whereas many members of

congress, including john boehner support the removal of the confederate flag from the grounds of the south carolina's capitol. speaker released a statement saying i commend the governor and other south carolina leaders in their effort to remove the confederate flags. in his second inaugural address the month before his assassination, president lincoln ended his speech with these pa powerful words which are meaningful today as when they were spoken on the east front of the capitol on march 4, 1865. with malice toward none with charity for all, with firmness in the right as god gives us, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a

lasting peace with all nations. whereas the house of representatives has several state flags with imagery of the confederacy throughout the main structures and house office buildings, whereas it is a fact that symbols of the confederacy insult many members of the general public. whereas congress has never recognized the symbols of sovereign nations within whom it has gone to war, whereas continuing to display symbol of hatred oppression that nearly tore our union apart that is known to have been through many groups would damage the reputation of this august body, institution and offend the very dignity of the house of representatives. and whereas impairment of the dignity of the house and its members constitutes a violation

of rule 11 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 a member of the house from any area within the house wing of the whol and donate any such flag to the library of congress. the speaker pro tempore: the resolution presents a question of privilege. the gentleman from california. >> i have a motion at the desk. the clerk: mr. mccarthy of california moves that the resolution be referred to the committee on house administration. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

gentleman is recognized for one hour. mr. mccarthy: this raises an important question and the house would be best served by committee action. i'm moving to refer it to house administration. i yield back and move the previous question on the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the previous question is ordered. ms. pelosi: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. mr. speaker i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady asking for a vote on

ordering the previous question. ms. pelosi: -- refer to committee. the speaker pro tempore: the question has not put that question. ms. pelosi: may i have a parliamentary inquiry? mr. speaker, parliamentary inquiry. i'll wait until the -- recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady ask for a recorded vote. a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of taking this vote by record vote will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time of the question of ordering of the motion to refer. this is 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 238, the nays are 185. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the gentlelady from california. recorded vote is requested. those in favor of taking a vote by recorded means will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. . this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united 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 238. the nays are 176.

with -- the motion is adopted. ms. pelosi: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, parliamentary inquiry. now that the house has voted to refer my privileged resolution to committee can the chair inform members of the status of the thompson of mississippi resolution referred to the house administration committee the same committee that we are referring today. that resolution was on the floor two weeks ago and referred to committee two weeks ago. can you inform us of the status of it, especially in light of the actions taken by the south carolina legislature and the governor of south carolina to take down the confederate battle flag. the speaker pro tempore: the chair cannot comment on any open committee proceedings. without objection, the motion to

reconsider is laid upon the table. the motion to refer. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on july 9, 2015, at 9:09 a.m. that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 728, h.r. 891, h.r. 1326, h.r. 1350. signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 350 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. report the clution. the clerk: house calendar number

47, house resolution 350. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18 dethe house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 6, to accelerate the discovery development, and delivery of 21st century cures, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-22 shall be considered as adopted in the house and in the committee of the whole.

the bill as submitted shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. all pounds against provision in the -- all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. no further amendment to the bill as amended shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such further am may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such further amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill as amended to the house with such further amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill as amended and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. burgess: mr. speaker for the purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, house resolution -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. would all members please take conversations off the floor.

the gentleman will resume. mr. burgess: house resolution 350 provides for a rule to consider a critical bill that will help millions of americans and their families who are suffering from diseases for which there is no cure. the rule provides for one hour of debate equally divided between the majority and minority of the energy and commerce committee, makes eight amendments from members of both parties in order -- makes eight amendments from members of both parties in order and fully debate the merits of this legislation. as is custom, the minority is offered a final motion to recommit the bill prior to its passage. i'm pleased the house is considering this bipartisan legislation. the energy and commerce committee has spent 14 months working to bring our health care innovation infrastructure into the 21st century. today there are 10,000 known

diseases or conditions and we've got cures for 500. there is a gap between the innovations and how we regulate our therapies. it is not unheard of to have a company take 14 years and spend $2 billion to bring a new device or drug to market. members held nearly 20 round tables in events around the country to ensure that we involve patients, advocates researchers, innovators, investors, that have first hand experience and help understand the gaps in our current system. h.r. 6 touches each step of the health care innovation process. discovery, development, and deliverry. this bill attempts to close the gap between the fast pace of innovation and our current often burdensome regulatory process. the bill provides exciting new tools to uncover the next generation of treatments and cures. h.r. 6 is, indeed,

transformative. transformative in the way doctors and researchers study diseases develop treatments, and deliver care. it encourages innovation. it fostfossers the use of data to further research t modernizes clinical trials and takes step towards the future of personalized medicine. not only does this bill take a major step forward, this bill addresses our nation's ever increasing health care spending. this bill establishes a temporary innovation fund which is fully offset, including permanently reforming our entitlement programs. beyond the budget window, these reforms in medicare and medicaid are established to yield at least $7 billion in additional savings for taxpayers. make no mistake, the biggest cost safer, the biggest cost safer will be find -- saver, will be finding cures to some of america's most deadly and costly diseases. i'm thankful to have worked on many parts of this bill. the legislation contains five

bills that i have introduced and other provisions that i helped with the authorship. i would like to take a minute to talk about a few of the sections where i personally worked on them. while thousands of americans are affected by multiple sclerosis parkinson's, and other diseases, very little accurate information exists to assist those who research, treat, and provide care to those suffering from these diseases. h.r. 6 actually includes h.r. 292 that i introduced with mr. van hollen of maryland to advance research for neurologic diseases. h.r. 6 will allow for surveillance systems for tracking key neurologic diseases which may then be used to help us further understand these devastating diseases and deliver their cure. we are improving patient access to needed treatments by supporting expedited approval for break through therapies and actually making it easier to seek approval of new indications of improved therapies.

currently, the food and drug administration approved drugs may be only promoted for the approved indication even if the sponsor determines that the drug is an effective treatment for another indication. h.r. 6 includes another bill, h.r. 2415, which i introduced with mr. engel of new york, and would formly establish a program within the food and drug administration -- formally establish a program within the food and drug administration that would allow companies with food drugs to submit data summaries for consideration of a new ipped case. this would reduce the time to approval and reduce resources required to approve new indications of drugs, drugs that have a well established knowledge base, well established safety information. it i introduced h.r. 293 with representative defazio of oregon to protect continuing medical education which plays a vital role in our health care system. this improveds patient outcomes,

and keeps our nation's medical professionals up to date. with the inclusion of this provision in h.r. 6, we will ensure that doctors continue to have access to these vital tools. the provision simply enforces current law which states that educational materials that were explicitly excluded from reporting requirements in the affordable care act, unfortunately the center for medicare and medicaid services has acted in conflict with the law, but we correct that in h.r. 6 and ensure that physicians have access to materials and information to keep us informed and up to date on medical innovation. . we ensure that americans have access to their critical health information by identifying barriers to achieving fully interoperable health records. mr. speaker, the united states taxpayer has spent well over $30 billion to ensure that

health care providers obtain electronic record system. however, the investment has not resulted in access to information for those records and patients across the health care spectrum. while we've seen adoption of electronic health care records, it is difficult to ensure the continuity for evidence-based care for patients. the 21st century cures act would finally set the united states on a path towards achieving a nationwide interoperable health information system. this will be transformative for research and for medical treatment. finally, along with mr. mccaul and mr. butterfield we aid patients by requiring companies to clarify availability of expanded access programs. further, with the inclusion of h.r. 2414, which i introduced with mr. schrader of oregon, we are requiring the food and drug administration to issue guidance on the dissemination of up-to-date, truthful

scientific investigation into medication. this passed on may 19 on a voice vote and passed the full committee on may 21, 51-0. the second time in three years that the committee has had a 51-0 vote. the previous one being on the repeal of the sustainable growth rate formula. i encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on the underlying bill. 21st century cures will not only deliver hope to the millions of americans' patients living with untreatable diseases but will help modernize and streamline the american health care system. mr. speaker, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, before i speak on this bill, i want to thank leader pelosi for leading today's efforts to hold house republicans accountable for their divisive confederate flag amendment. you know, it is stunning to me that my republican friends decided to refer the minority leader's resolution to committee so we could not have a debate, but the legislature of south carolina could have a debate but my republican friends here in the house of representatives ensure that we in congress cannot have that debate. and the fact is that americans, i think, are ready to leave behind the discrimination, hate symbolized by the confederate flag, but my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to have a different idea. last night house republicans introduced an amendment to the interior appropriations bill that simply has no place on this house floor. it would undo the successful democratic amendments adopted by voice that would have barred

the display of confederate flags in federal cemeteries and bar the national park service from doing business with gift shops that sell confederate flag merchandise. simply put while south carolina voted this week to take the confederate flag down republicans in congress were ready to put it back up. and even more troubling, house republicans tried to sneak this amendment into the bill late last night hoping that nobody would notice. but we noticed. the american people noticed, and i'm ashamed in 2015 congress would even consider a measure that seeks to perpetuate the hate and racism that the confederate flag represents. now, my friends on the other side of the aisle, especially the leadership, seem to be disarray. the speaker of the house is trying to distance himself from the measure, notwithstanding that the republican chairman of the house appropriations interior subcommittee, who offered the amendment, said he did so at the request of the republican leadership. the confederate flag is a symbol of racism and a reminder of one of our nation's darkest

periods of division. it has no place in america's national parks. congress should not promote this symbol of hate and now is the time to come together, and i am proud to join with my colleagues who are standing up today for all americans united against hate. you know, i will -- i will be asking my colleagues to vote no on the previous question so that we could bring up the pelosi resolution before all of us here and have that debate and have that vote and i hope my republican friends will join me. i just want to say one final thing. the fact that the interior appropriations bill was pulled from consideration on this house floor by my republican friends because they believed that without this pro-confederate flag amendment that they could lose up to 100 of their own members is stunning to me. it never ceases to amaze me. just when i think this institution can't sink any lower, then something like this

happens. and so mr. speaker, i would urge my colleagues to stand with me and vote against the previous question so we can actually have this debate, a debate i think the american people would want us to have. now, mr. speaker, on the underlying bill before us, h.r. 6, the 21st century cures act, i just want to say that this is the product of bipartisan hearings, stakeholder meetings, drafts and redrafts. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of the version of h.r. 6 that was passed by the energy and commerce committee by a vote of 51-0. a vote like that doesn't happen often, especially in this congress. i want to commend chairman upton and congresswoman degette for leading this initiative and tirelessly working to get h.r. 6 to the floor. it represents the kind of investments we should make families stay healthy and promote our economy. it provides $8.75 billion in mandatory funding over the next five years to the national

institutes of health to spur scientific innovation and discovery by the country's premiere medical researchers and scientists. during the clinton administration, congress doubled the n.i.h. budget and made a real commitment to keeping america on the front lines of scientific research. that investment led to exponential advancements in medicine, and we should continue that progress by once again giving n.i.h. the resources they need to make new advances in medicine. we shouldn't let our politics limit our ambition. as members of congress, we were elected to be leaders, and this is an opportunity to ensure america continues to lead the way on new breakthroughs in health. now, i would have preferred to see the original $10 billion in n.i.h. funding that was included in the bill that passed out of the energy and commerce committee, and i hope that we can increase n.i.h. funding back to that level as the bill moves forward. we know without a shadow of a doubt that basic medical research produces results. in fact, n.i.h. funded research at institutions like the

university of massachusetts medical school in my hometown of worcester, has been the single greatest contributor to advances in health in human history. today, the average american lives six years longer than in the 1970's largely because of pioneering n.i.h. investments. all across the country n.i.h. supported researchers are forging a path toward treatment and cures for debilitating diseases that impact patients everywhere but their success depends upon us, our decision to invest in n.i.h. is imperative to their success in improving health for all americans. just consider umass medical school for example. for years they have been at the forefront because of investments from n.i.h. in 2006, dr. craig mellow received the nobel prize in medicine for his groundbreaking discovery of shutting off bad cells. umass has researchers finding

cures for aides down syndrome and lou gehrig's disease. all of this is possible because of investments in n.i.h. but i hear over and over again from scientists and medical researchers that they worry about the uncertainty of n.i.h. funding because of crazy things that we do like sequestration. they worry about our commitment to advancing basic medical research. fewer and fewer research grants are being funded. in countries like china and india and even singapore are luring away the best and brightest american researchers because they are committed to making meaningful investments in medical research. 21st century cures helps to reverse that trend, but i worry it's not enough. i'm pleased to see that h.r. 6 takes a number of steps to modernize clinical trials, improve how the food and drug administration approves new drugs and devices and encourages the development of next generation treatments through the use of precision medicine, which president obama highlighted in his state of the

union speech. just last week we saw the approval of a major new drug that will improve the quality of life with more than 10,000 people living with cystic fibrosis. the investments included in 21st century cures will help us make more of these kinds of groundbreaking advances a reality. mr. speaker, for all the bipartisanship and positive aspects of this bill, i would be remiss if i didn't point out one glaring inconsistency. despite numerous hearings, roundtables and forums on this bill, a controversial policy rider that restricts access to abortion was added to the bill that came before the rules committee. it's like the majority couldn't help themselves. they couldn't resist an opportunity to add a contentious rider to an otherwise bipartisan package to advance medical research. i'm pleased that the committee made in order an amendment offered by my friends, barbara lee, jan schakowsky and yvette clarke to strike these controversial policy riders. but the committee prohibited a number of other amendments from

coming to the floor for debate. out of the 36 amendments submitted for consideration only eight will be considered on this floor during debate on this legislation. many of our colleagues came to the rules committee last night to testify on their amendments. they raised important issues and made suggestions as to how we can improve this legislation. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule which prohibits debate on a number of amendments worthy of consideration. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden, a member of the energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. dr. burgess, thank you. i want to thank our chairman of the committee, fred upton, and diane degette for their great bipartisan work. we all put a shoulder to the wheel here to get this done. this is really big. 21st century cures. all of us have known someone afflicted by deadly diseases.

most of us have seen people in our own families. my mother passed away as a result of ovarian cancer. my sister-in-law had brain cancer. i lost a son to a congenital heart defect. my mother-in-law had rheumatoid arthritis from a very early age. my step mother died of a stroke. we are all affected. investing in cures investing in treatments, innovation and doing it right here in america is the best step forward. this legislation would modernize the nation's biomedical innovation infrastructure and streamline the process for how drugs and medical devices are approved in order to get new treatments to patients and get it to them faster. to do this we solicited input from some of the best scientists in the world, including dr. brian druker of oregon health sciences, university night cancer research center, a true pioneer in the fight against cancer. this initiative would give hope

to countless oregonians, like my friend, linda, close friend and southern oregon -- in southern oregon, she lost her husband to pancreatic cancer. she said this legislation will put us on a path to improve survival to pancreatic cancer. another praised the bill saying investing in 21st century science by boosting funding for the n.i.h. makes sense. colton and tiffany allen, these are residents of oregon. this bill will give hope, hope to individuals like colton who struggles with a.l.s. we owe it to people like linda and nancy, to colton, to tiffany, to our families, to all americans and literally people around the globe to pass this legislation to tackle these diseases that have no treatment or cure, to develop new innovative treatments provide better health technology ultimately bring hope and better lives for all. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr.

speaker. at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on rules -- the gentlewoman from new york, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on rules ms. slaughter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. slaughter: thank you mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for giving me this time. this is a very important day for me as a member of the rules committee. rules, as you know, is the process committee. i want to spend my time discussing process that's been going on here. the process that rules have in the house is to really make certain that fairness is presented to all parties. whether you're majority or minority, you have your rights but they have been trampled on and abused with increasing regularity under this majority. and we have two glaring examples of that just today. we have glaring examples every day, but let me bring up these two. this bill is critically important to all of us. as those spoke before makes it clear and we all agree, the importance of putting more

money into major research in the united states, we are falling behind other countries in finding the cures and the innovation which we've been known for centuries. this is an important step we are taking is a critically important bill. but process matters. . after the bill was voted out unanimously, major changes were made with no committee input at all. and they include reduction of the amount of money that the committee had said would be put into national institutes of health by $1.25 billion. a very substantial sum. they added some policy riders that literally make no sense. why in the world would you put in an abortion rider on a thing for medical research. as far as i know the n.i.h., most medical universities doing this research do not perform abortion procedures. it was simply a way again, to

mollify people and make somebody think if they vote for this bill they are doing something it's impossible to do. but like alice in wonderland we are all trained here to believe in possible things before breakfast because we are confronted with them daily. another one is to change the pay fors which is critically important to everything we do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for another minute. ms. slaughter: despite the fact that good things were in it and came out of committee, the process is completely changed after it was over by rewriting major portions of it. that doesn't appear anywhere in the rules of the house. not only that, let's think about what happened here this morning. last night on the interior bill which is an open rule, after the democrat rose up, betty mccollum

of minnesota had yielded back her time after time had been yielded on both sides and vote taken, suddenly another amendment appears at the request as mr. mcgovern said of the republican leadership. so they suddenly come up with this. the call was not informed in any way. absolutely no knowledge of what was going to happen. that may not break a specific rule of the house but it does breaket kit. you do -- it does breaket kit. what happened this -- break etiquette. what happened this morning precisely -- without the ability to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: recognized for an additional minute. ms. slaughter: without that crazy amendment, frankly that resolution as far as i'm concerned, once you send it back to committee you are sending it to internment. we'll never see that again. but once they had to have that in order to get the vote to pass

the bill. that's the kind of horse trading and all the things that go on here. after all the process and procedure that belonged to the congress of the united states and has for centuries has been absolutely abused as i said earlier and trampled on on a regular basis. it's time we stopped t nothing happened here today except to make this place look stupid. i was born in a border state in kentucky. all my life i have lived there. was educated there. i was married there. i never saw a confederate flag in all the years of my life. that flag, battle flag they are putting up appeared in the south after the civil rights legislation. the products of strom thurmond and the dixicrats. that's when they started to bloom all over. it is a symbol of pure hate and revenge or whatever else they want to call it. it needs to go. the speaker pro tempore:

gentlelady -- the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. slaughter: it is equivalent to me having the german government fly of swastika over the bune it's stag. dunn dunn bundestag. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i'd like to yield to the gentleman from florida, mr. bilirakis, a valuable member of the energy and commerce committee, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. mr. bilirakis: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the rule of h.r. 6, the 21st century cures act. it is one of the best things congress has done in a long time in my opinion. h.r. 6 is a holistic reform of how we get cures and treatments to patients who need them. that's what this bill is all about. patients. our constituents. one provision i was particularly proud to author would establish

a drug management program which prevents at-risk beneficiaries from abusing controlled substances. this program will help protect our seniors. as a fix to the medicare part d that is a program which is really desperately needed. this commonsense measure has been recommended by g.a.o. and i.g., and the support of -- also recommended by c.m.s. it is utilized by private industry, try care, and state medicaid programs. this bill makes strides to prevent prescription drug abuse and promote a healthier america. i urge support for the rule and the underlying bill as well. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern:00 mr. speaker, i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. matsui. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. matsui: thank you, mr.

speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding me time. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the rule to support -- consider the 21st century cures act on the floor. on the energy and commerce committee we worked tirelessly with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to get this bill to a place that we could all agree upon. a place where we provide new mandatory funding for n.i.h. to do the critical research that is the foundation for cures. a place where we tweak f.d.a. processes and provide f.d.a. with additional resources to do the new things that will help get us treatments and cures to patients faster. as we work together to find ways to accelerate innovation, patients of rare diseases have been at the forefront of our conversations. it is often more difficult to research and develop cures for rare disease patients due to their small populations. however, finding cures to rare diseases is not just of the utmost importance to patients and their families with those

rare diseases, it is important to all of us. you never know where a cure might come from and often research and drug development on one disease may turn out to be fruitful for another. we all need to work together to advance cures and treatments. a provision of this bill would encourage public-private partnerships. foster better utilization of patient registries that generate important information on the natural history of diseases. especially rare diseases for which other types of research can be difficult. i also applaud the efforts in this bill to advance the president's precision initiative to accelerate discoveries that are tailored to individual patients needs. the language in 21st century cures, recognizes it is a delivery of safe, effective, quality health care services by health care provider using technology as a mode of delivery, and interoperability provision makes great strides toward ensuring that a health

i.t. systems can communicate amongst each other and with patients. i don't claim that this bill is perfect. compromises have been made. i am disappointed that the amount of n.i.h. funding has been recently been reduced from $10 billion to $8.7 billion i'm also disappointed that policy riders such as the hyde amendment language has been inserted after we voted this out of committee. i look forward to voting for the amendment offered by my colleagues barbara lakers jan schakowsky, and ms. clarke to strike the policy riders language. with that, mr. speaker, i do however support the 21st century cures legislation. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: thank you mr. speaker. at this time i would like to recognize mr. mccaul from texas chairman of the homeland security committee 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is

recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. mccaul: thank you mr. speaker. let me commend dr. burgess chairman upton for a bill that's truly visionary that will actually save lives. something we can rarely say we do up here in this place. i believe this will provide cures for the next century. two provisions i'm very pleased to see in this bill. one the andrea sloan cure act which expands compassionate use to those who have life threatening diseases and gives them greater access to lifesaving medications. andrea is a friend of mine who on her deathbed asked me to try to make sure that this didn't happen to other people. and finally, the re-authorization of the creating hope act which has now led to the first -- second childhood cancer drug approved since 1980's and the first f.d.a.-approved drug to treat high-risk neuro blastoma. i believe that with the passage of this bill we will see greater

cures in the future and we will not only save adults from cancers but also children from this dreaded disease in the future. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from texas riffs. -- reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern:00 i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from california, a member of the armed services committee, ms. speier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. speier: i thank the gentleman from mismass. mr. speaker, coming out of committee h.r. 6 was a bipartisan huge leap forward in our efforts to accelerate the development of lifesaving cures through medical research. and yet somehow between the committee and the floor the majority once again has tacked on anti-abortion hyde amendment language which makes no sense at all. it's like the republicans are

cheap stage magicians, attracting our attention with the promise of critically needed medical advances all the while stuffing the same old flea bitten hyde provision rabbit into their hat. we are tired of this tedious stage show. n.i.h. is already subject to the high provisions in appropriation bills. this is just a way to continue politics as usual. if h.r. 6 passes under a mantle of bipartisanship, it will pull out the rabbit, wave it around, and say look how amazing and wonderful we are. i for one am sick of the house being run like a boardwalk magic show. adding this type of language between open transparent committee consideration and open transparent floor consideration makes a mockery of representative government. adding an abortion rider to bills in the dead of night through sleight of hand turns the substantive bipartisan work that's crafted in h.r. 6 into a pathetic imitation of

cooperation. since the 114th congress began, the house has taken 37 actions to restrict abortion access. while i don't agree with this paranoid focus on women's private and legal medical decisions, it's the majority's right to set the agenda. i cannot stand by while these provisions are slipped into an otherwise excellent bill through underhanded maneuvers that run contrary to our democratic process. when similar provisions were slipped into a human trafficking bill, we said no. why aren't we saying no today? i am a co-sponsor of the original version of h.r. 6, but i cannot let the people's house -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. speier: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i would like to recognize the gentleman from tennessee, dr. phil roe, the chairman of the house doctors caucus, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes.

mr. roe: thank you, dr. burgess. mr. speaker, i stand before you today who 45 years ago graduated from medical school. my first pediatric rotation was at st. jude's children's hospital. at that time a majority of all those children that i saw as a young medical student died of their disease. today almost 90% of those children live. back in the 1950's we had a polio vaccine developed with help with the government funding. today that would be scored as a cost to the taxpayers. does anyone think that prevention of polio was a cost to the taxpayers? one of the greatest miracles of the 20th century. and just four short months ago my wife died of stage four colon cancer. and i know right now that everyone in this chamber who is listening and everyone who is outside watching this has had a close family member, a friend, relative who has experienced something similar. it's time now we as a nation got serious about curing the major

diseases, not treating the disease, but curing the major diseases affecting this country and affecting us personally. i am more passionate about this bill and excited about passing the 21st century cures bill than anything i voted on since i have been in congress. i strongly encourage my colleagues to support this rule and underlying bill. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'm pleased yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from florida a member of the energy and commerce committee ms. castor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady for floofment is recognized for two minutes. ms. castor: i thank my friend, the gentleman from massachusetts, for yielding the time. i rise to support the rule and in strong support of the 21st century cures bill that was voted unanimously in a bipartisan fashion out of my energy and commerce committee. america is the world leader in medical research. and we have got to work to keep

it that way. that has been at risk lately because of congressional budget battles, the resources that our researchers need to find the cures and treatments of the future have been at risk. our commitment to medical research has eroded over the years. but this 21st century cures bill would put us now on a stronger path forward. . to boost our patients back home suffering from da bail tating diseases. -- debilitating diseases. mandatory -- because it is mandatory in america that we respond and we research the cures of tomorrow. such as precision medicine like they're doing at the cancer center in tampa, florida. now that we've mapped the human genome, we can find and provide precise cures and treatments to our neighbors and family members with cancer.

i am disappointed that the amount of money has been eroded. i'm very disappointed that the hyde rider was added at the last minute behind closed doors. it was not voted on in committee. but simply stated, this bill's too important not to pass it. i'd like to thank my colleagues chairman upton and my good friend, diane degette from colorado, for leading the charge. we're firmly with you and we're with the patients and the researchers in america that will benefit from this terrific piece of legislation. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, may i inquire as to the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: 17 minutes remaining. and 11 minutes for the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. burgess: i thank the speaker. i'm going to yield myself 30 minutes -- 30 seconds for the purposes of the introduction of my next speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: and mr. speaker, it's really a great privilege to recognize the next speaker on our side. chairman emeritus of the energy and commerce committee, in fact, the last re-authorization for the national institutes of health occurred under joe barton's watch, one of the last things we did at the waning hours of the 109th congress. and mr. speaker, he did provide additional funding to the n.i.h. he provided an increase of 5% a year for the lifetime of that re-authorization. unfortunately it was never appropriated to that level after the democrats took charge in the 110th congress. i recognize the chairman -- i want to yield to the chairman emeritus of the energy and commerce committee three minutes for his observations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. barton: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. barton: i want to thank the member from texas for that generous introduction.

mr. speaker, four years ago i went to then-majority leader eric cantor and committee chairman fred upton and asked permission to create a task force, a bipartisan task force, equal numbers of republicans and democrats from the energy and commerce committee and the appropriations committee to work with outside groups and experts to see if there were not some ideas that we could put forward in legislation to improve the ability to find and implement cures for all the various diseases that afflict our nation. mr. upton and mr. cantor approved that task force. we had a task force of 12 members -- i mean, 24 members, and we had an outside group that included several nobel prize winners, leaders from johns hopkins, m.d. anderson, former directors of n.i.h., f.d.a. that morphed into the beginning

of this congress to a task force that diane degette and chairman upton led themselves and that has led to a bipartisan bill that has been pointed out came out of committee 51-0. that is an amazingly extraordinarily positive accomplishment to have total ue a numberity to have in this -- unamity to have in this bill. we've taken every innovative idea in the medical community that makes any sense at all and put it into this bill. we are increasing the authorization for spending for n.i.h. we have the innovation fund which is a mandatory program for five years that puts a little under $2 billion a year that is offset it is paid for,

it does go away at the end of five years. but for five years it is specifically going to innovation research that is the fast track to find the cures that are most applicable to the marketplace today. this bill is a revolutionary bill. we need to pass it, mr. speaker , and there are lots of problems there are things that are not in the bill that i wanted in the bill, but this is a huge step forward. it rarely happens that congress can work together to do something that is totally for the benefit for of the american people. this is one of those times. we need to vote for the rule and then we need to vote for the bill, and we will move forward united to find the cures for the 21st century, for all americans and really to

some extent for all the world. i thank the gentleman for his time and yield back any time i may have. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'm going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule to allow for consideration of leader pelosi's resolution which basically says that any state flag containing the confederate battle flag would be prohibited from the house wing of the capitol. given what the republicans -- republican leadership tried to do on the interior appropriations bill yesterday, i think this is especially timely. as i mentioned earlier, while south carolina voted this week to take the confederate flag down republicans in congress appear ready to put it back up. and mr. speaker, on what we will offer, if the previous question is defeated, i want to

yield two minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the ways and means subcommittee on oversight, the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i want to thank my friend, mr. mcgovern, for yielding. mr. speaker, i must tell you, my heart is heavy. i'm saddened by what has happened here in america. i thought we had come much further, much further along. growing up in rural alabama attending school in nashville tennessee, now living in georgia i've seen the signs that says white, the clerk will designate. white waiting the clerk will designate waiting. during the 1960's, during the

height of the civil rights movement, we brought those signs down. they're gone. the only place that we would see those signs today would be in the book, in a museum or on a video. if a descendent of jefferson davis say their flag is a symbol of hate, why can't we do it here? why can't we move to the 21st century? racism is a disease. we must free ourselves for the way of hate, the way of violence, the way of division. we are not there yet. we have not yet created the beloved community where we respect the dignity and the worth of every human being.

we need to bring down the flag. the scars and stains of racism are steered deeply and embedded in every corner of american society. i don't want to see our little children, whether they're black or white latina, native americans, -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lewis: these signs -- mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. lewis: as a nation and as a people we can do better. we can lay down this heavy burden. it is too heavy to bear. hate is too heavy to burden to bear -- too heavy a burden to bear. we can't plant these seeds in the minds of our people. when i was marching across that bridge in selma in 1965, i saw some of the law officers sheriff deputies wearing on

their helmet the confederate flag. i don't want to go back and as a country we cannot go back. we must go forward and create a community that recognizes all of us as human beings, as citizens, one people, one nation. we all live in the same house, the american house. thank you for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: thank you mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for two minutes. yodeyode thank you mr. speaker. i rise -- mr. yoder: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in talking about the research and investment that will cure every disease in america. the rule would allow us to debate the 21st century cures bill forwarded by the energy

and commerce committee on a unanimous bipartisan vote. what this bill would do would increase by over $8 billion research over the next five years to be conducted by the national institutes of health. each year we spend over $700 billion on care for seniors through medicare. yet, we spend just $30 billion a year roughly researching every cure that plagues our country, alzheimer's parkinson's, heart disease we spend $30 billion a year on research yet spend trillions in health care. we know each year 600,000 people will die of cancer. we know each year in the united states 00,000 people will die of alzheimer's. -- 700 people will die of alzheimer's. these are -- 700,000 people will die of alzheimer's. these are real people. this is not just a moral issue, it's an economic issue. by 2050, estimates is our country will spend $1.1

trillion to treat health care for people with alzheimer's alone. over a trillion dollars annually yet we spend $562 million a year researching a cure for alzheimer's. a true definition of penny-wise and pound foolish. this 21st century cure bill increases our commitment to curing disease as i said, by over $8 billion over the next five years. each of us has a family member or a friend with a tragic story about one of these diseases. these diseases know no party affiliation. they don't know a center of aisle versus the left or right side of the aisle. they know no state. they have no regional boundaries. they don't know the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending. to cure these diseases is a moral imperative for these families. but to cure these diseases is also an economic imperative. if we cure one of these diseases, our investment will pay for itself a thousand times over. the c.b.o. can't score that. the crosh can't make any recognition of that. this is a savings -- the c.b.o. can't make any recognition of that. this is a savings bill.

i have a 20-year-old daughter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. yoder: i have a 20 month-year-old daughter and this is not about curing disease for my young toddler our generation, it's about curing disease for her generation and every generation to follow. supporting the 21st century cures bill bends the cost curve on entitlements. it saves our country from going into bankruptcy. and it will help us balance our budget. these investments are not just necessary for our moral imperative, to save lives but they're also an ir economic imperative. all these things together means we must have a large robust vote in this house to pass this bill and make sure the 21st century bill goes forward and i strongly support it and i ask my colleagues to do the same. i yield back my time mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you mr.

speaker. the southern strategy was and is a republican strategy of gaining political support for its political candidates by appealing to regional and racial tensions in this country based on the history of slavery, the history of the civil war, racism and segregation. that's a history that is indefensible and so is the confederate battle flag which represents those attitudes. i call upon my fellow colleagues in the republican party to denounce in southern strategy once and for all and to do what it takes to affirm the tide of this country which

is to do away with that symbol of oppression and racial -- the confederate battle flag and let's move that from our national cemeteries and from our park service places of -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. johnson: purchasing memorabilia and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. i'll yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, we do have today before us a unique opportunity. we have an opportunity to lay the groundwork for the future. we have the way to lead the way to the 21st century in providing 21st century cures. to be sure we are providing additional funding for the national institutes of health. we're providing additional funding to the food and drug administration. we are also placing requirements upon those institutions. we all know we got to do things faster better, cheaper smarter. we got to do more with less. that is what the 21st century cures bill lays before us.

that is why this rule is so crucial and critical today and why i urge passage. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. . mr. mcgovern: i yield to the the gentlewoman from connecticut. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. the bill provides for an increase of $175 billion per year in the budget for the national institutes of health. and i applaud to increase funding. i'm a survivor of ovarian cancer and i'm alive today by the grace of god and medical research. i appreciate biomedical research. this increase isn't enough to restore n.i.h.

since fiscal year 2010, national institutes of health has seen its budget erode by $3.6 billion, an 11% cut. if we are serious about funding life-saving research, we must raise our level of ambition. it sets aside of the increase to be spent in certain specified areas of research. this is a wrong approach. the best people to decide that are scientists and not politicians. we should not substitute our judgment for theirs. i'm concerned that the bill would lower standards for medical device approval at the food and drug administration and create new pathway for approval that involves less rigorous testing requirements. this is a wrong approach. it is our duty to protect the public from unsafe devices and drugs. we do not do that by reducing

standards. the majority is using this bill as a vehicle for anti-choice hyde amendment language. since january the majority and its counterpart in the other chamber have sought to restrict access to abortion no fewer than 37 times. we need to trust women and trust the choices they make. we have to trust women. politicians have no business medicaling in those decisions. for those reasons, we should reject this bill. and i urge a no vote. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i yield myself one minute. i would point out that once again, re-authorization of the national institutes of health occurred in this congress in the wanning days of the 109th congress in december of 2006. mr. barton re-authorized the n.i.h. to increase by 5% per

year. we were told at the time that was not enough, that with biomedical inflation at 8.8%, that was a cut. but what happened is the democrats took control of the house and the senate the following year. they never appropriated the n.i.h. to that 5% figure. now, this isn't about republicans or democrats, this is about finding cures of the 21st century. we do direct some of the research dollars within n.i.h. when the stimulus bill passed in 2009 $10 billion wept into it to be spent that year. we ended up filing paperwork from leftover projects. this directs this research into high risk, high reward areas. we need the deliverables from the n.i.h. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is

recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield to the the gentlewoman from colorado, ms. degette. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. degette: thank you, mr. speaker, mr. speaker i rise today to give my thanks to fred upton for recruiting me to help co-sponsor this bill with him and all of our colleagues for working together on finding cures that will bring from the labs into the clinic, cures for so many diseases that we don't have any treatments for right now. this really is an extraordinary effort that we've made, and it really is congress at its best. i do want to mention, i was disappointed when after the bill passed the energy and commerce committee 51-0 in the manager's

amendment, the annual riders from the labor-h.h.s. bill were put into the bill. i think it's unnecessary and distracts our attention from the important mission this bill brings. so i will be voting for the lee amendment. but i would urge all of our colleagues no matter how you vote on the amendments made in order, please vote yes, please vote yes for the patients of america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: this past weekend in an op ed piece that was published on-line quime quoting here, as lincoln said a century and a half ago, the federal government should only be doing things that people can't do for themselves. well, medical cures are a great example of something people can't do for themselves at home.

that's what we are about this afternoon, providing the rule to allow consideration for cures of the 21st century. the underlying bill is important. i urge all members to support the rule and the underlying bill. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has three minutes remaining. mr. mcgovern: i yield one minute to the the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman from great state of massachusetts for yielding. this is an emotional time for many of us. this is an important bill but we have gone through an emotional time on this floor again raising up the ugliness of the rebel flag. and i try to educate my colleagues about the damage that this damage has done to so many.

under that flag, many were killed in the name of slavery. and this is the 150th year of the elimination of slavery. when i spoke of disease, all falling on minority populations in life there are still issues that face you because you are different. i call upon this house to recognize that although we have many issues to debate, that when you pierce the heart of someone because you believe they are inferior or different and cod will and protect the rebel flag, i hope we will get to the point between now and next week as i introduce h.res. 342 to ban all signs of hate, that we will rise to be unified together and stand under the american flag. i yield back. mr. burgess: may i inquire as to the time remaining.

the speaker pro tempore: 8 1/2 ip minutes and the gentleman from massachusetts has two minutes remaining. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts with two minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker -- mr. mcgovern: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i will yield a minute to the gentleman from texas pending which i would like to yield a minute to the gentleman from michigan before we close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has yielded one minute. >> thank you very much, mr.

speaker. i wanted to speak about the importance of us acting now to do the right thing in regards to the confederate flag. many of you may not know but today marks -- not today but this year marks the 100 years of the viewing and the premier of the film that really sparked the re-emergence of the confederate flag "birth of a nation." it was bigger than "star wars" or "jaws." it revived the confederate flag and made the flag the symbol of hate it is today and re-emergence of the kuklux klan. doesn't have anything to do with the civil war, but it was a

completely different flag. it has to do with seeing degree gation and keeping us in the -- see degree gation. i ask my republican colleagues to join us in moving forward. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. upton: as we know we launched this bipartisan effort a year and a half ago and tomorrow's house vote, we mark a very important milestone for our quest 21st century cures. there are so many individuals throughout our 18-month journey to help us to get to where we are today. parents, patients across the country, advocates researchers academics, regulators, some of the nation's brightest minds to

all we say thank you. thank you to the staff, the hardworking staff. did the meetings, drafted the language, sat at the negotiating table for countless hours to help us develop this incredible product. gary joan, paul, josh, graham, sean macy, mark, todd, marty kim, jim and the staff of our members, thanks to the house legislative and c.b.o. for your working through many, many weekends. thank you to both sides, both parties, who brought their best ideas to make their case and delivered so many of the policies that we welcome today because we listened. i want to thank chairman hal rogers and his staff. the appropriations committee have been a critical partner in

this effort for the last couple of months in developing the right approach to achieve our shared goal of helping patients in a fiscally responsible way. i want to highlight my partner representative degette. she came to my district in michigan and i traveled to colorado and been on a number of road trips for cures across the country and i look forward down the next journey. i thank chairman pitts, mr. green, for their strong partnership. we made great strides and our work continues and we aren't going to stop. chairman pete seeings, dr. burgess, members of the rules committee to make sure that this legislation gets to the floor in a timely fashion. and i give a thanks to max six-year-old ambassador for cures. although he is facing with the

challenges of a syndrome, he has been a warrior. he joined us when we had a 51-0 vote in the committee and max will be by our side tomorrow on the house floor for final passage. helping max and others like him are why we're here. helping my friends brook and real part of my general debate discussion, that's why we're here. with a resounding vote tomorrow, we will send a signal to the senate loud and clear that the time for cures is now for cures 2015. i look forward to working with my senate counterparts to continue the momentum to get this bill to the president's desk. we have a chance to do something big, and this is our time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts with two minutes. mr. mcgovern: my colleague have additional speakers? mr. burgess: we'll try it again. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself the remaining time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: the 21st century cures is a good bill and i thank mr. up ton and ms. degette to come up with this product. it invests in n.i.h. and invests in lifesaving medical research and we will find cures to disses -- diseases and like parkinson's and alzheimer's. this is important stuff and maybe we will find a cure to the disease that resulted in so many of this house voting for the destructive sequestration initiative, that by the way, cut medical research and put off the day of some of these lifesaving cures. we need to do better than this, but this is an important start and important step in the right direction. and i hope my colleagues will support it.

secondly, i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question and i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment i would offer in the record if we defeat the previous question, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: if we defeat the previous question, we will bring up again the pelosi resolution that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose not to debate. the reason why this is important, the reason why we need to debate this, is because we need to come together and do the right thing. the confederate flag is a symbol of hate and division and a symbol of so many things we abhor. the time has come to follow the lead of other states in this country. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question, i vote no on the rule because it's restrictive. with that, i yield back my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: this is a momentous bill that will be before us today. this is analogous to the time back in the 1970's when the national cancer institute was authorized by congress in the nixon administration. this is an opportunity to take that leap forward and perhaps deliver some of those cures so many of our constituents have waited for for so long. mr. speaker, we all value institutions and institutional knowledge and institutional learning, but mr. speaker, we also acknowledge that there are times when we've got to be disruptive. there's times that you have to forget the past and move into the future and this is one of those times. we're all familiar with the fact that, yeah, the neighborhood bookstore may be gone but we can order stuff online from am mono-- amazon.

disruptive technology is as important in medicine as it is anywhere else this bill is paid for. this bill is offset. it sun sets in five years' time. as i was reminded by a colleague, dr. andy harris, the gentleman from maryland, a few days ago while this bill is offset, while we are paying as we go for the increasers in national institutes of health and the f.d.a., what if what if one of those shots succeeds? in may of 2012, glen campbell came and played a concert at the library of congress. this is him and his daughter ashley. they were on the stage. glen campbell went public with the knowledge that he has alzheimer's disease. he struggled at several points during that concert. it was, in fact, amazing to watch him play his instrument, at time he is couldn't remember the words to the song and ashley would help him. this is a shot where they did

dueling banjos, very, very accomplished and skilled instrumental work that they both did on their instruments that they were playing. what if, what if we were to deliver that moon shot and provide that cure that would have prevented glen campbell into falling into the recesses of alzheimer's illness? what if that cure were within our dwrass ? what's worse, what if that cure is on a shelf or a test tube somewhere and we just haven't quite gotten around toits evaluation? this is important stuff. glen campbell, he narrated the sound track of my life as i was growing up. from arkansas a gentleman of our generation who was so important to so many of us as we were growing up. and he shared with us there on the stage at the -- he shared with us there on the stage his

story and his daughter's story and you can see his daughter ashley looking at her dad. if we could preserve her ability to smile at her dad for a little longer, wouldn't that be worth some of the fighting that we do here? this bill is offset, this bill is paid for. today's rule provide for consideration of this critical bill, a bill that would transform and advance the discovery, development and delivery of treatments and cures. i applaud all members who have work thond thoughtful piece of legislation along with energy and commerce -- worked on this thoughtful piece of legislation, along with energy and commerce staff. all members of the energy and commerce committee were asked to bring their ideas to the table and we worked to include as many as we possibly could. i want to express my sincere thanks to the attorneys who have worked around the clock to deliver us the legislative language. i want to thank chairman upton and representative degette, as well as chairman pitts, ranking

member pallone and green for their leadership throughout. i want to thank the staff who have worked so hard over the past year, really, literally, all hands were on deck. there's not one energy and commerce health staffer that does not have their fingerprints all over this bill. i certainly want to thank j.p., danielle, lauren from my office who have put in that additional effort to help deliver this product. mr. speaker, this is an important piece of legislation in front of us today. we do unfortunately have a lot of distractions but let us not be distracted from providing the tools for the next generation of doctors, a generation that will have more ability to alleviate human suffering than any generation of doctors has ever known because of our actions here on the floor of the house today. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time, i move the previous question on the

resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in support of the request for the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 6 of -- clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings will be postponed. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 728, an act to designate the facile i have to the united states postal service located at 7050 highway b.b. in cedar hill missouri, as the sergeant firs class -- first class william d. woods post office.

for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that -- mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill h.r. 2647. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 347, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2647. the chair appoints the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, 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 consideration of h.r. 2647 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 2647 a bill to expedite under the national environmental policy act an improved force management activities -- forest management acttivities in the national forest under the jurisdiction of the bureau of land management and on tribal lands to return resilience to overgrown fire-prone forested lands and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule the bill is considered read. the chair shall be equally divided and vol. -- control. the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson and the gentleman

from minnesota, mr. teeterson, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, will each control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman i rise today in strong support and as an original co-sponsor of h.r. 2647, the resilient federal force act of 2015. since the inception of the national forest system in 1905, the fundamental measure of the forest service had been to manage our federal force and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. as a result, the forest service has played a critical role in rural america, partnering to produce timber, natural resources and jobs while sustaining the ecological health of the forest and surrounding water sheds. national forests have been extremely successful in creating recreational and educational opportunities for millions of americans, however, our forests

are facing declining health and are not managed as well as they need to be. due to numerous challenges over the past few decades. often unnecessary and prolonged planning processes limit the service from effectively managing our forests. this also goes along with the cost of litigation or even the threat of litigation in some cases. both of these situations keep boots in the office instead of in the forest and spend money on doing paperwork instead of work in the field. the cost of suppressing and fighting wildfires has been a growing challenge for the forest service, with their fire costs increasing from 13% of the forest service budget in 1995 to approximately half of the annual budget today. this epidemic of declining health and catastrophic wildfires are in direct correlation to policies that have led to dramatic decrease in managed acres. timber harvests have drastically plummeted from almost 13 million

board feet in the late 1980's to only -- 13 billion board feet in the late 1980's to only 3 billion in recent years. at the same time the number of acres affected by wild fires is doubled from three million around the second timber harvest to six million now this reverses this psych bill ending the destructive fire borrowing problem that robs peter to pay paul. it does so with funds only made available for wildfire suppression. in my view this legislation is the next step to build upon the groundwork laid by the 2014 farm bill. as an -- and it's an earnest attempt to give the forest service more authority and much-needed fleblingsability to deal with challenges of process funding, litigation, necessary timber harvesting and much-needed management. h.r. 2647 incentivizes and rewards collaborations with the

private sector -- sector on management activities and aflours state and third party funding of projects. it revises the resources advisory committees while returning shares of receipts for long-term stewardship projects. perhaps most poorntly it provides commonsense, cat gorical excuses or c.e.'s for certain forest service projects. these c.e.'s will expedite the process to get projects up and running thsms a thoughtful piece of legislation and will do much to help the forest service to better do its job. i urge my colleagues to vote yes and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved, the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. peterson: i rise in support of h.r. 2647, the resilient forest act of 2015. s that bipartisan piece of legislation that will address some burdensome regulations that have rulled from legal

challenges and get our forest actively managed the way we need. for some time we have been concerned about efforts undertaken by extreme environmental groups to twist laws to their liking. the so-called sue and settle strategy has led to policy changes decided by activists and bureaucrats. these policy changes often ignore congressional intent and fail to take into account constituent input and real facts on the ground. additionally this means a less transparent and less accountable regulatory process. h.r. 2647 will simplify forest management activities, thereby reducing some of this bad behavior. the bill also includes an important budgetary fix to help address the rising cost of wildfires. just this year wildfires have burned hundreds of thousands of acres and caused millions of dollars of damage. h.r. 2647 will allow access for our land management agencies to resources they need to fight wildfires without having to rob their own accounts.

the current practice of fire borrowing leads to taking away resources from productively managing our forests to keep them healthy and less prone to fire this bill would end this practice and ensure agencies have access to needed resources to fight wildfire disasters all year. again that much-needed bipartisan legislation that addresses many of the issues currently impacting forest management. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2647 and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. thompson i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. abraham, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is mr. abraham: i thank my colleague and recognize the hard work done by the agriculture and natural resource committees to bring this important bill to the floor. for too long failure to properly manage our national forests has led to increased tree mortality

from wildfires droughts, insects and disease. the resilient federal forest act gives the forest service and bureau of land management the tools needed to reverse this trend. this bill would allow critical projects to move forward by streamlining regulations and will give parishes and counties greater flexibility on how they use revenues and ensure federal agencies have increased access to fund in order to fight and prevent wildfires. these reforms would put americans to work. will give money back to our local communities for infrastructure and education and will make our forested communities safer by reducing their vulnerability to wildfires. in my home state of louisiana a national forest covers 604,000 acres with 582,000 of those in

my district. forestry products account for well over 18,000 jobs and $1 billion in income in my district. the people of louisiana know how valuable well managed forests are to our state and economy. forested communities know this as well. it's time we start being proactive instead of reactive. the resilient forest act will put back to realize full potential of our natural resources. i support this bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: i'm pleased to recognize a member of the conserves and forestry subcommittee congressman benishek for two minutes. the chair: is -- the gentleman

is recognized. mr. benishek: i rise in support of the resilient federal forest act of 2015. i represent northern michigan, which is over 20 million acres of federal, state and private forest land. our forests are part of the economy in northern michigan that generates $16.3 billion per year and creates 77,000 jobs. in addition to the forestry, the outdoor recreation industry contributes 18 billion to michigan and over 190,000 jobs to our state. healthy forests are vital to our way of life in northern michigan. i grew up exploring these forests, hunting, fishing, snowmobiling. a way of life for those and millions to visit the forest every year. many of our forests are in a state of disrepair and they are

overgrown and especially in the western united states consumed by wildfire. the forest service which is entrusted of managing 10% of the land base has identified 58 million acres at being at high risk for catastropheic forest fire. by conservative estimates 56 billion board feet of board timber have burned in forest fires. over the last 10 years $1 billion was rotted on the stump. those receive news aren't available for the u.s. treasury. they couldn't buy seedlings to replant. we are allowing jobs to burn away on poorly managed federal lands. nothing about the current process is working. h.r. 2647 takes simple steps to allow our forests to become healthier and better managed for the future. this bill would streamline

timber harvesting while reducing the threat of frivolous lawsuits. in addition, this legislation allows states and federal forests to react faster -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. benishek: states and federal forests to react faster to catastrophic wildfire events and reducing risk to public lands. this legislation has a number of processes for private, state and tribal contracting which will lead to healthier and better managed forests. many may live -- i ask my colleagues who are not in heavily forested areas to listen to your friends. support this commonsense bipartisan legislation and improve the health of our forests. i yield. the chair: the chair will rise or the committee will rice to

receive a message. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: a message from the senate. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate agreed to the house request for a conference and appoint conferees on h.r. 1735 cited as the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2016. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. mr. peterson: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: i'm pleased to recognize the gentlewoman from florida, mr. yoho, for two minutes. mr. yoho: i thank the chairman

for his leadership. i stand here in support of creating more jobs and creating the health of our nation's forest. h.r. 2647, the resilient federal forest act of 2015 is a bipartisan bill that will address the growing economic and environmental threats to the catastrophic wildfires. this piece of legislation is hugely important for my district and the entire southeast region of the united states. florida is home to a multi tu of tude of national forests, which span 1.2 million acres. these forests supply over 10,000 acres per year for timber production, creating jobs, lumber and paper products. this land allows for recreational activities. in addition, they produce roughly 600 billion gallons of

fresh water and that's in my home state. due to lack of proper forest management, the risk of catastrophic wildfires has increased. these emergencies draw critical funding away from the bureau of land management which is intended to prevent wildfires thus creating a chronic problem that is getting worse. this bill allows fema to transfer funds to the forest service when these disasters occur. ensuring activities like prescribed burns and other management techniques are adequately funded. this bill helps prevent wildfires and should be supported by every member in this chamber. and i commend the chairmen, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: i'm pleased to recognize congressman bar

letter who is a chairman of the subcommittee for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. barletta: let me thank the chairman for working with our committee on title 9 of the bill. title 9 authorizes the president to declare a major disaster for wildfire on federal lands and provide assistance to the departments of interior and agriculture for extraordinary wildfire suppression costs in excess of the 10-year average. these provisions protect fema's disaster relief fund and preserve fema's wildlife assistance that is currently available to state local and tribal governments through the stafford act. because this provision was not included in the reported bill, a legislative history document has been developed to articulate the congressional intent for title

9, as well as how it is expected to be implemented. mr. chairman i would ask unanimous consent to enter this legislative history document into the record. the chair: covered under general leave. mr. barletta: after watching the floodwaters of hurricane irene and tropical storm irene, my priority has been to protect the programs that come to their aid namely the disaster relief fund. this is a program that helps families get back into their homes, businesses reopen their doors and municipalities clear the streets so our communities can recover when the next big storm strikes. i have seen the fund provide assistance when it's needed most. our constituents rely on federal disaster assistance. it should not be jeopardized under any circumstances. let me thank chairman bishop and chairman conaway.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. thompson: how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from minnesota has 13 minutes remaining. mr. thompson: i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. duncan: i rise in strong support of this legislation and i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for yielding me this time. this bill will streamline the forest service planing. and means fewer forest fires. i served for 22 years on the natural resources committee.

several years ago i was told there was six billion board feet of dead trees. this was leading to a tremendous buildup of fuel in these forests leading to millions more acres being burned because we weren't cutting enough trees. in the late 1980's, we were harvesting 10 to 11 billion. we had six million acres lost to forest fires. now we are harvesting a little only one billion board feet a year and acreage loss to forest fires has gone up. 10 million acres lost in 2006 and on and on and on and it's a shame. allowing this renewable resource to be used, everything made with wood houses, all types of wood products and everything else made from wood would be cheaper. this would help lower income people most of all. thousands of jobs could be

created, not just for loggers but also in construction and businesses making wood products this would help lower-income people. we shouldn't let the forests burn but use them to help people. if you want more forest fires, vote against this bill. if you want to help preserve our national forests and make them healthier and help the economy in the process, then you should vote for this bill. this is a very moderate response to what has become a big and fast-growing problem. we should not give into extremists and oppose this bill. this is good legislation and i commend chairman peterson, chairman con away and chairman thompson for bringing this sensible legislation to the floor and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. schrader: i thank you for the opportunity. i would like to clear up some misconceptions about 2467 and tame time to tell you what this bill really is and what is not. contrary to the statement put out by the president this is not a complete and row gation or nepa process on our federal lands. this is a streamline process for a very small portion of federal forest land subject to catastrophic natural disasters and subject to extensive collaborative or wildfire protection plans. a narrow subset of our federal forests. for the folks back east out west, forest land occupies a great chunk of our states. over half of my state of oregon is federal forest land, most of that is managed by the forest service and b.l.m. three-fourths of my state is distinctly rural.

frankly, these guys were in the recovery for the last 20 30 years when timber harvesting came to a screaming halt under our so-called forest plans. it is entwind with smarter and healthier policy which promotes resiliency and sustainability. this bill is narrowly crafted to build on the trust between older environmental and timber adverse areas showing what can be done on our federal forest lands. . currently, dead, diseased wood contributes to our -- ozone to our atmosphere. our forests need to be cleaned up and made healthy again. if you care at all about chi mat change or the health of our federal forests, or hopefully the health of rural communities

around america, you should be for this narrowly crafted bill to collaboratively build a sustainable forest policy. i'd like to reiterate that this bill only pertains to a narrow portion of lands affected by or likely to be affected by these natural disasters. it only applies to land under the federally sanction red source advisory committees already in place or covered by community wildfire protection plans. in other words, these are areas that already have had extensive plo active management discussions on these lands with community partners across the environmental and timber resource spectrum. this is exactly where a streamlined nepa process should be played. this is not eliminating environmental impact statements. it does permit a small exclusion of 5,000 to 15,000 acres for a narrow type of project. the forest service is currently spending hundreds of millions of

dollars on nepa compliance, the single biggest factor limiting the amount of work they get done on the ground. it also has an innote vate -- innovative approach to restoring lands after a filed wire. no roads are built, current contracts stay in place, and reinforcement is en-- reinforcement is required to help habitat. you can't accelerate the process here where are you going to do it? didn't we accelerate the process a little after sandy or katrina? some of our colleagues some of my citizens, some of my constituents out west are feeling that there's a lack of fairness in our disaster policy. it's common practice for radical groups to file a litany of alleged grievances on any forest project that's suggested, mostly to drag out the process and drag out policy they disagree with at great taxpayer expense. most of these climbs are procedural. we must form this legal gotcha

game by force the groups to focus on clismse impropriety they feel they can win on, that's fair. that's what this bonding proposal does. folks, for people in rural oregon and rural america, they're being left behind. the timber economy was a major economy for these forested regions for tech kids. they're not seeing large companies, high tech manufacturing, moving into their remote areas. these are communities that have demended on our renewable natural resources for their livelihood. our forests are a catastrophe waiting to happen. they're much less diverse than they used to be this drought is about the worst it's been in a long, long time. let's begin to work collaboratively. give local communities the tools they need and have to deal with and prevent these catastrophes and learn how to work together again to build healthier forests and healthier rural communities. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania with one minute remaining. mr. tompspob -- mr. thompson: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i don't believe i have any adegreesal speakers, i can yield time to the gentleman if he wishes. mr. thompson: i have additional speakers so i would appreciate it. mr. peterson: i yield my remaining time to you. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota yields eight minutes to pennsylvania. the gentleman from minnesota has yielded all his allotted time. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for his leadership -- for his generosity and his leadership on this question and others as well. i recognize the gentleman from alabama for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. byrnes: thank you mr. chairman.

thank you for your work on this legislation. the federal forezest service act is necessary if the forest service will have what it needs to manage our forest lands. i come from a state where forestry is critical to our economy and ecosystem. forestry is a $13 billion industry in alabama. thankfully, my state does not have a serious issue with wildfires, due to our active forest management. that said, it does not mean that my area isn't impacted by the wildfire crisis. the forest service and bureau of land management are forced to spend so much money fighting wildfires that they have to take money away from other nonfire accounts that ironically help prevent wildfires like thinning and controlled burns. mr. speaker, this bill just makes sense. by simplifying the environmental process requirements, and reducing burdensome regulations that hinder active forest management on federal

timberland, we can help reduce filed wire -- wildfires and protect our nation's forests. i want to thank the gentleman from arkansas and others for their work with this bill. and the continued leadership on behalf of our nation's foresters. i urge my colleagues in this house to support this legislation and i call on the senate to act on this bill right away i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: i'm pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman and eagle scout from oregon for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their great work on this legislation, this is really, really important my colleague from oregon, mr. schrader, spoke eloquently about what our state faces and our communities face. mr. walden: that's why this forest service act is so important. to get us back in charge of our

lands to fight the destruction of wildfire and the incredible pollution from wild fire. as we speak here today on the house floor, brave firefighters are still trying to contain the corner creek fire which has already burned nearly 29,000 acres of forestland in my district. 29,000 acres already burned. unfortunately this fire season, the west -- this fire season in the west has only just begun. among the many strong provisions in this bill is streamline planning, speed up the peace of forest management, several in particular are helpful to our great state of oregon where national forests in eastern oregon, this legislation repealed the prohibition on harvesting trees over 21 inches in diameter. there's no real ecological reason for this, it was a temporary measure put in place 0-something years ago and remains today. it didn't make sense then, doesn't make sense now and it will be repealed this law's one size fits all rule illustrates

how broken the federal forest management has become. it greatly limits the flexibility forest managers have to do what's right for the health and ecosystem of the forest to make them more fire tolerant. this legislation also contains legislation i wrote with remitives defazio and schrader. it will cut costs, increase timber harvest and revenue to local counties. b.l.m. is also directed to revise their flewed -- flawed management plan proposals to consider the clear statutory mandate to manage these lands for sustainable timber production. finally, one look at the fires around the west makes clear that the status quo simply is not working for our forests, for our communities, or for the environment. we need to do better this resilient federal forest act will to that, it will provide better healthier forests and communities and i thank the committee for taking up this good piece of legislation and encourage my colleagues to approve it.

the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: i recognize the gentleman from montana for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> as a fifth generation montanan i grew up in timber country. our timber yards were in full swing and visitors flocked to so grace ver -- glacier park. mr. zinke: in building a strong tourist economy and a strong timber economy -- but building a strong tourist economy and a strong timber economy are not mutually exclusive. that's why i strongly support the resilient federal forest act of 2015 and it does what it should do it encourages local organizations to work together on collaborative projects and revitalize the economy but not only that it revitalizes our forests. think about it. as we debate this bill today there are two wildfires in my home state of montana, just a few miles from where i grew . as of today, more than 3.9

million acres across our nation have burned in wildfires this year alone. that's larger than the entire state of connecticut. we're on track for more than double if the conditions don't improve. just last week, the forest service who i visited said we're in the perfect storm. in the words of former chief of the forest service, chief wosworth, we don't have a fire problem as much as we have a land management problem. that's why this bill is so important. last week, across my district, i toured the site of the glacier rim fear. it's burning the same ground that burned in 2003. i was told by people on the ground that the reason why this fire is burning is the forest service was not able to conduct a sal vg operation for fear of lawsuits among other reasons, and those lawsuits left standing timber which cannot be addressed

by crews, which only can be addressed by helicopters, and that's a million dollar project. and has been tet it's not burn once but twice in 15 years. we need more scientists in the woods and less lawyers. i urge my colleagues to join me in a bipartisan effort to support this bill. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania with 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. thompson: i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from nevada, mr. am dee -- amday for 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. amodei: management reduces catastrophic wildfire. in the high desert rangelands of nevada as well as the confer forests of the sierra nevadas around lake tahoe, the ruby mountains and others, we have 100-year resource there.

once it burn it's 100 years before it comes back. why the -- by the time you take into account the moisture regimens and everything affiliated with that. then you have years' long processes after it burns to go after that. this is great legislation. i want to thank my colleague from the razorback state for his work on it and the other folks that helped him. one of the reasons this is so important to our state, the last 20 years, on b.l.m. land, we burned six million to seven million acres and we are dealing with a thing called the sage grouse listing where they talk about loss and fragmentation of habitat. nobody's fault, mostly lightning caused fires, six to seven million acres of catastrophic wild fires. more management, more restoration and the ability to recognize that the funding for this is something that needs to be a fema-related thing rather than just through the normal process are all great ideas. i want to thank my colleagues for their help on behalf of the

people of the silver state. thank you very much. yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: mr. chairman, i want to thank all of my colleagues ranking member peterson, who all spoke on this important bill. h.r. 2647 is a commonsense bipartisan solution to start fixing a broken system. right now, miles of red tape and constant lit fwation usually from groups that refuse to come to the table are preventing our forest receiving the active management they desperately need. this leads to more catastrophic wildfires and more money diverted from other priorities to fight fires. this legislation will aid in reversing this cycle. it gives the agencies more flexibility to manage their federal lands which protects wildlife habitat and surrounding watershed, spurs growth in the rural economy and saves time and saves money. i want to thank mr. westerman

for his leadership on this, chairman conway -- conaway, chairman bishop, ranking member peterson and would the ranking member like me to yield any remaining time? if not, i will yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time.

the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for 15 minutes. mr. bishop: thank you mr. speaker. i thank you for letting me talk about this significant bill that will improve our go over the status quo and to begin our portion of debate, i'd yield five minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, who is the sponsor, chief sponsor of this particular bill, who has a personal background actually having earned a degree in forestry, even from the state of arkansas, the gentleman, mr. westerman, who is the sponsor of the bill. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for five minutes.

mr. westerman: mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 2647, the resilient federal forests act. this bipartisan legislation will give the forest service tools it needs to better manage our national forests. as a professional forester, i see our forests are in decline and lack resiliency. president teddy roosevelt, who worked alongside a fellow forester to create the u.s. forest service are the two i would credit as the fathers of our national forests. roosevelt said the nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increase and not impair value. we have problems with our current forests which is leaving it less resilient, decreased and impaired in value. it is not only our forests that suffer. without forests that are

healthy, we have poor water quality, poor air quality, less wildlife habitat, less biodiversity. my bill aims to fix these problems and it aims to fix them through proactive and sound management. first, our forests are living -- are a living dynamic. we have no decisionmaking at all. this bill incentivizes collaboration and speeds up the implementation of collaborative projects while safeguarding strong and timely environmental reviews. we have a problem of not slvadging timber destroyed in catastrophic events which makes the forests more dangerous increases future wildfire problems and makes it difficult for reforestation. this bill sets up requirements for salvage and reforestation. the forest service would have to implement greater reforestation in response to catastrophic events.

typically, less than 3% of an area is reforested after a catastrophic event. this is unacceptable. my bill requires 75% reforestation within five years. we have a problem in our rural communities that not only depend on forests for their sustenance but also provide emergency services, education and support for the forests and residents who live near the forests. as our forests are decreed and impaired in value, our forests communities immediately suffer and suffer more in the future. my bill gives counties flexibility in spending secure rural funding and puts 25% of stewardship contracts into the county treasure for schools and other public services. there are other policy problems this legislation solves, but none are more important than problems caused by having to spend too much of our forest service budget for reactive fire suppression rather than on

proactive sound management and fire prevention. this bill ends the destructive practice of fire borrowing in a physically responsible manner. it creates a subaccount under the stafford act specifically for fighting wildfire. i would like to thank chairman bishop, conaway and shuster for their assistance with this critical bipartisan bill. our national forests desperately needs scientific management. in the words of roosevelt, i call on us to behalf well, to treat our forest ry services as assets that we will turn over to the next generation, increased and not impaired in value. i look forward to advancing this bill today and call on the senate to act promptly to ease the burdens of the summer fire season. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized for 15 minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. tsongas: the clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat open space as well as robust recreation and timber economies that provide jobs and partner with federal land managers to improve forest health. everyone agrees that we must increase the pace of restoration work, to limit the impacts of catastrophic wildfires and to improve the long-term health of our forests. h.r. 2647 does contain some new thinking and potentially useful concepts that if done right could help the forest service achieve its long-term goal of healthy, sustainable forests. for example, the bill provides incentives for collaboration, which has been identified as a priority by witnesses from both sides of the aisle. it also proposes some creative ways to finance forest restoration projects developed

through collaboration. h.r. 2647 also offers the potential solution to the devastating impact of fire borrowing, the practice of transferring funds away from forest restoration projects for use in fighting wildfires. throughout the debate over norest policy in this particular bill, democrats, including myself, have urged the majority to deal with how we pay for the largest and most catastrophic wildfires, which represent only 1% of wildfires but consume 30% of the entire agency's firefighting budget. i am glad that the majority acknowledges the urgent need to address the fact that over 50% of the forest service budget goes to fighting wildfires, squeezing out funds needed for all other critical forest service programs, most especially those that focus on forest health. however, these helpful provisions do not offset the

many serious concerns that i still have with this legislation, which was developed without any input from natural resources committee democrats. in fact, when the federal land subcommittee held its hearing, the bill was still in draft form. this process even left the forest service without the opportunity to provide adequate or meaningful testimony. instead of working together on a bipartisan basis to improve the health of our national forests about which we all care, this bill irresponsibly chips away at the environmental safeguards of the national environmental policy act and places tremendous burdens on american citizens seeking to participate in the public review process of forest service projects. for example, h.r. 2647 would have a wide range of timber and restoration projects from critical environmental analysis and public review. this means that thousands of acres of sensitive ecosystems

would be much more vulnerable to degradation and damage and changes to the judicial review process raises serious constitution concerns, eroding some of the bedrock principles of the american legal system that protects the basic rights of citizens to participate in the federal decisionmaking process and to hold their government accountable. if this legislation were to become law, a citizen challenging a federal decision would be required to post a bond equal to the government's costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. if plaintiffs win it is paid out of that bond. -- if plaintiffs lose -- as our colleagues on the judiciary committee can attest this provision flies directly in the face of american legal precedent. public lands including our

national forests, belong to all americans. they are a public good. bedrock environmental laws like the national environmental policy act make sure that the public voice is heard and that critical habitats are protected, not only for species that rely on our national forests and grasslands but also for american citizens who depend on these lands for their drinking water and economic livelyhoods or simply to enjoy their treasured beauty. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from massachusetts reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i'm reserving. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized. ms. tsongas: i wish to yield three minutes to representative defazio, my colleague from oregon. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i've been working on forest policy for my entire tenure in congress. i have some of the most productive and fabulous forest

lands in the entire federal system both forest service and b.l.m. lands under unique o.n.c. management. but here we are headed in again into a very, very potentially bad fire season. june record heat, no prescription. we had very little snowpack last winter and the heavy fuels are already as dry as they get. so we've seen this before, the fires will break out, b.l.m. and forest service can't stop fighting the fires so they will borrow from other accounts, including fuel reduction to protect forest values and communities, forest health and a myriad of other programs. this happens year after year after year. it's time to end that and this bill takes that first step in ending that practice of fire borrowing and that is a tremendous benefit to the resource agencies, the resources themselves and the preparedness in fighting fires. that alone gives this bill a

tremendous merit. it deals with some other long-standing issues in oregon. we adopted something called temporary side screens back in 1993 i believe, saying you couldn't cut any tree over 21 inches in diameter. it makes no biological sense and it makes no sense to the premiere forest scientists in the world, jerry franklin and norm johnson. you have nonnative trees that are growing there because of repression of fire for the last 100 years. they're over 21 inches but they're growing in stands of ponderosas that are 200 years old and they'll kill the ponderosas a native tree, but the forest service can't go in and deal with this issue. with this legislation they finally can. on our unique o.n.c. lands, there is provision of the northwest forest land called survey and manage. literally crawling on the forest floor looking for slugs, snails, calling for owls, three

years in a row. this, again, is not necessary, according to the premiere scientists and is incredibly expensive and time consuming on the bureau of land management. each plan, no matter what the output level would do away with that practice. so this bill does away with that practice, saving the b.l.m. resources and moving ahead with better management. there are a number of other issues that relate to these o.n.c. lands. i want to thank chairman bishop, chairman mcclintock for working with myself, mr. schrader and mr. walden in order to address these issues. extending the comment period developing new management options. b.l.m. isry tuesdaying, de-- is refusing despite the comment period request on these critical management plans. this is great merit. there are provisions in the bill that i don't like and i don't support. we will be given an opportunity

on the polis amendment to deal with the bonding issue and the cost recovery issue which i don't belongs in this bill. i have concerns about the magnitude of the c.e.'s for, you know fire recovery and salvage. but on balance the other parts of this bill are important to the point where the bill should receive support. people who care about the future of our forests. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from massachusetts reserves. ms. tsongas: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i'm pleased to allow two minutes to the subcommittee chairman on federal lands who helped shepherd this bill through the committee process, the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman excess timber comes out of the forests one way or another. it's either carried out or it's burned out, but it comes out. years ago when we carried it out we had healthy forests and

a thriving economy. we managed our national forests according to well-established and time-tested forest management practices that prevented vegetation and wildlife from overgrowing the ability of the land to support it. revenues from the sale of excess timber provided for prosperous local economies and a steady stream of revenues to the treasury which could in turn be used to further improve the public labbeds. but 40 years ago in the name of -- public lands. but 40 years ago in the name of saving the environment we consigned our national forests to a policy of benign neglect and the results are all around us today, not only impoverished mountain communities but in utterly devastated environment. our forests are now dangerously overgrown. trees that once had room to grow and thrive now fight for their lives in competition with other trees for the same

ground. in this distressed condition they fall victim to pest atlantas, disease and cat -- pest lents, disease and catastrophic wildfire. we can't salvage dead timber anymore. this legislation is the first step to sound management of our national forests. it stream lines fire and disease prevention programs. it exat the indicts restoration of fire damaged lands. it protects forest managers from frivolous lawsuits and it does so without requiring new regulations, rules, planning or mapping. mr. chairman, the management of our public lands is the responsibility of congress. the environmental left have proven disastrous to the health of our forests, the preservation of our wildlife and the welfare of our mountain communities. this bill begins to reverse that damage and to usher in a new era of healthy and resilient forests and an economic renaissance for our mountain towns. i yield back. .

the chair: the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized. >> i yield four minutes to my colleague from arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for four minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank the gentlelady for yielding. i rise in opposition to h.r. 2647 so the called resilient forest federal forest act of 2015. before i address the many concerns with the underlying bill, i must commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. they have finally take an step toward addressing the 600-pound gorilla that is the enormous cost and impact of fire borrowing on the forest service budget. i offered an amendment at a committee markup that would have required congress to address the issue of fire borrowing before this bill could take effect. and we have been calling on house republicans to address the issue for years. my amendment was rejected but i'm glad it encouraged the sponsors of this legislation to address the cost of wildfires. the newly added title 9 is not a perfect solution.

by amending the stafford act to include wildfires under the definition of natural disasters, this section creates a mechanism to address the very disastrous practice of fire borrowing. but there is a small hitch nevertheless. congress could still -- would still have to fund this new disaster relief fund. similar to the process for funding recovery for superstorm sandy, which did not go smoothly, to say the least. well, while this might be a positive step, it does not make h.r. 2647 a good bill. with regard to title 9, the additional disaster relief fund , hopefully the majority will not rob peter to pay paul within the forest budget in order to fund this disaster fund. or leave title 9 just as an empty, hollow and useless gesture that never gets funded.

in the name of forest resilient and health h.r. 2647 undermines the neep process, discourages collaboration -- nepa process disclurges collaboration creates -- discourages collaboration creates burden on citizens' access to the courts. this bill quite frankly is not about forest health, it's about increasing the numbers of trees removed from the forest. the white house just communicated its strenuous opposition to h.r. 2647 and let me quote from that communication. the administration strongly opposes h.r. 2647. the most important step congress can take to increase the pace and scale of forest restoration and management of our national forests, and the department of interior labs, is to fix the fire suppression funding and provide additional capacity for forest service and department of interior to manage the nation's forests and

other public lands. h.r. 2647 falls short of fixing the fire budget problem and contains other provisions that will undermine collaborative forest restoration, environmental safeguards, public participation across the national forest system and our public lands. categorical inclusions that are part of title 1 are not the product of thoughtful consideration of the legislation. instead they pave the way for up to eight square miles of clear cuts of old growth trees with little or no environmental review. title 2 reduces to three months the time for environmental assessments and environmental impact statements for reforestation or salvage operations following a large scale fire. the forest service testified that this time limit is unrealistic, encourages snap judgments that can have horrible long-term consequences. title 3 strips away access to the courts that other speakers will speak to as well and, you

know, think about the group that's going -- that would dominate the collaborative decision making without any judicial review. the bill also eliminates equal access to justice act for successfully the ganlts and forces them to do -- litigant -- for successful litigants and forces them to do a one-side bond requirement to eliminate citizen activism and public participation in a problem that they can help solve rather -- solve, rather looking at this as a threat. i urge a no vote on the legislation and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i move that the committee rise. the chair: the motion is adopted. accordingly, 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 having had under consideration h.r. 2647, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2647 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek reck recognition? -- seek recognition? >> i present a privileged report for printing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany hu h.r. 2995, a bill making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending september 30 2016, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: ordered printed. pursuant to clause 1 of rule

21 points of order are reserved. pursuant to house resolution 347 and rule 18, the house declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2647. will the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren, kindly resume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2647 which the clerk will roorp by title. the clerk: h.r. 2647, a bill to expedite under the national environmental policy act improved national forest activities derived from the public domain on public lands under the jurisdiction of the bureau of land management and on tribal lands to return resilience to overgrown fire-prone forested lands and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, 12 1/2 minutes remained

in general debate. the gentleman from utah has nine minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from massachusetts has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. who yields time? mr. bishop: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, former member of our committee, but someone whose district clearly knows the significance and impact of forest lands and how they should be maintained, the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton. the chair: for how long? mr. bishop: let's give him at least two. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. tipton: i thank the chairman for yielding me time. mr. chairman, the challenge that we face in the west is very obvious. overgrown forests, bark beetle devastation, threat to our watersheds, threat to habitat, threat to private property that sensible people have long called for a solution to be able to have rendered. i'd like to be able to applaud the hard work of chairman bishop, the committee and particularly the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman in putting commonsense pieces of

legislation forward in this act. the concept of being proactive rather than being reactive, putting the health of our forests, protection of our watersheds, habitat for wildlife and saving private property while bringing some control back to our states and our communities, is long overdue. forward looking innovative legislation like the resilient federal forest act speaks to the heart of forest management. this is a piece of legislation which is long overdue. we've seen the impact and pilot projects of healthy forests. the opportunity to be able to get the forests again in healthy state, creating abundant ground cover and forge for our animals and protecting those watersheds. this is a commonsense piece of legislation that i'd like to encourage my colleagues to be able to support. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized. ms. tsongas: i reserve. i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah is

recognized. mr. bishop: i'm reserving. i'm reserving. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized. ms. tsongas: i yield two minutes to my colleague from georgia, mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you mr. speaker. impartial justice and access to the courts is a right guaranteed to every citizen in this country. across the street from this chamber, lady justice sits blind folded on the steps of the supreme court so we can all be reminded that justice should be blind. today we are debating yet another republican bill restricting access to the courts to only those with deep pockets. h.r. 2647 continues the alarming trend of republican-sponsored legislation that proposes to limit the average american's access to the courts, so polluters that line the pockets of politicians with campaign contributions can continue to

profit. h.r. 2647 requires that a citizen post a bond prior to challenging the united states government's forest management activities. this bond must cover all of the defendant's anticipated costs, expenses and attorneys' fees to be paid if the defendant prevails. in the rare occasion plaintiffs are successful, they will only be able to recover the amount posted in the bond and can only , if they win, exact and -- can win only if they -- or can recover only if they win exactly on all counts. the government, however, does not have to cover any of the plaintiff's costs. requiring the posting of a bond that could be as costly as tens of thousands of dollars undermines citizen access to the courts when a party believes the government failed to follow the law. the individual consumer, nonprofit organization small business or public interest group does not have the financial ability to challenge

large corporations or more often the federal government which citizens believe is harmeling their communities or -- harming their communities or environment. by allowing citizens to recover their reasonable legal fees when they file and win in court, you encourage americans to participate in public discourse and hold the government accountable. rollbacks to jish review and imposition of attorney -- judicial review and imposition of attorneys' fees along with interference of key judicial powers contemplated in h.r. 2647 cripples the ability of those concerned with environmental protection and seek -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. johnson: thank you. and it cripples the ability of those concerned with environmental protection to seek representation and redress in the courts. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from utah is

recognized. mr. bishop: still reserving. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized. ms. tsongas: can i inquire how much time i have left? the chair: the gentlewoman has 1 1/4 minutes remaining. ms. tsongas: thank you. i want to close by he its rating that instead of working together -- he its rating that instead of working together on a bipartisan basis to improve the health of our national forests, this bill irresponsibly chips away at the environmental safeguards of the national environmental policy act and places tremendous burdens as we've just heard on american citizens seeking to participate in the public review process of forest service programs. i am glad that the majority acknowledges the urgent need to address fire borrowing, but we still have concerns with this proposal and it in no way offsets many other serious problems with this legislation. developed without any input from committee democrats or meaningful testimony from the forest service. i urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back.

the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to present this bill to us. i also thank all the many people who have worked from three different committees on this. chairman shuster, chairman conaway from the t.n.i. and the ag committee, as well as those who have worked on the resource committee. very grateful for the democrats who have spoken here already in defense of this bill, mr. schroder, mr. defazio, their help and assistance in this. as former chief forest -- of the forest service said, we don't have a fire problem in our nation's forests. we have a land management problem and it needs to be addressed quickly. that is exactly what the westerman bill does. it addresses that problem. the status quo flat-out is not working. forest service has recommended or recognize that we have at least 58 million acres that are in dire need of assistance right now, that can easily be

burned in this next fire season. that's bigger than my home state of utah, which is still the 11th largest state in the nation. if you add the higher end estimates, then you add more acreage into that, which means you'd add the state of utah and michigan. 1/3 of the entire forests we have are in danger of being destroyed if we do not do something immediately. the forest service right now can only address the problem in three million acres, 5 is the minimum -- that simply means it would take them over 20 years to address the problems, that's more than my lifetime is left here, to try and solve this problem. i realize that i was probably born at a greater distance from the apocalypse than most of the people here, but at the same time in my lifetime you can't solve the problem if we keep on with the status quo. that is why this bill is essential and that's why i appreciate all the speakers who have gone on today saying, why -- saying why this is the perfect first step.

what is so good about it is as soon as the president signs this thing, the forest service can immediately implement everything, these are practices and processes that they have at their disposal, they are ready to move forward with it, all we have to do is give them the tools to immediately do that. . funding alone will not solve this problem but we have appreciated that. i appreciate once again chairman shuster subcommittee chairman barletta who came up from the transportation and infrastructure committee who came one a good funding mechanism to move us forward. but that by itself does not solve our problems. we have a land management issue at the same time. we have a problem with litigation which basically stops the efforts of the forest service to do their job in their tracks. as soon as they become sued they have to stop moving forward on their program, they have to spend money to defend themselves in the lawsuits or do both to try to cover themselves so they don't get sued in the first place. it does not work. we have heard a lot of comments about the ability of being able to sue as a poor private

citizen doesn't have the right to sue, if we pass our bill, that's ridiculous. this only deals with areas that have collaboratively worked on. that means where citizens got together and came up with a plan of action on their forests and as they move forward to that, some special interest groups with a whole lot of deep pockets on their side stops them in their tracks by a lawsuit. those are the kinds of groups that are going to have to put up the bond. those are the kind of groups who can no longer simply say, oh, we're going to sue you on 25 different issues. we realize three will be realistic but we want you to take the time and effort to spend your federal moneys to try and defend all those 25. what we're saying is look, if you are going to sue on something sue on something that's realistic. don't put the entire world on there and make sure you're willing to succeed on those particular issues and those particular areas. we have a title in there that says you can still sue but can't get an injunction to stop our suit as we go through

frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuits. two prior administrations we have 11,000 lawsuits that took place from letting the forest service go forward. it has to be addressed. the forest service recognizes that and that's why former forest service employees as well as the current ones realize if we don't have some kind of litigation reform we will not solve our problems with forest help. we also have to give them the tools so they can move quickly on what they need to do. categorical exclusion is not something that is evil. it is actually something that is essential to move forward. they recognize that they need that tool. that's why i said as soon as this bill is signed by the president, they can implement what they already know to do. what we're asking them is to auto do an environmental review but -- is to do an environmental review but you don't have to do it time after time. if you do it the first time it's sufficient and they have the wisdom and the ability to do that. will that destroy our forests? heaven's no. what this will do is have the potential of saving our forest.

being able to allow the federal forest land to be as resilient, to be as well-managed as the state and tribal forest lands are. because in state and tribal forest lands they don't have to deal with a lot of the issues that stop them from actually solving their problems. but we do on the federal forest system unless we move forward. that's why i appreciate all those who have spoken so far on the need of moving forward on this particular bill. we are in the beginning of a fire season that could be catastrophic. we have witnessed the results of wildfires in the past. we need to do something now, and we have to move forward and this is a bill that is commons. it was wonderful to have our hearings listening to the groups of people, being excited about the opportunity to having the tools the forest service needs to do their job, having the funding the forest service needs to do their job and also having the protection from frivolous lawsuits the forest service needs to do their job. we must give our forest service

personnel the tools they need to be successful. and if we don't, if we don't pass this bill because we want something perfect, come down. first, if we don't pass this bill, we are going to have a devastating situation coming in our forest lands and in our nation this coming year. this is an essential step forward. is it perfect? no. there's a whole lot more we need to do and we will still look forward to those issues. we will move forward on these issues. but what this does is move us forward in a significant way. does this bill destroy our bedrock environmental laws? of course not. last time i heard people talking about bedrock was talking about wilma and fred and barney and i'm sorry those laws didn't save their pet dinosaurs back in those days also. we are not going to change. we're not -- we are not going to change everything. what we are going to do is

allow our forest service to do their jobs something they are stopped from doing now because of procedural proxies, because of litigation, because of lack of funding and all three of those are addressed in this particular legislation. it's a great piece of legs and it needs to go forward and i urge everyone in here, everyone in here to realize how we must make steps to move forward and pass this bill and get it over to the senate and onto the president's desk so our forest service can do their jobs. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from utah yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committees on agriculture and natural resources printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-21 modified by the amendment printed in part b of house report 114-192.

that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part c of house report 114-192. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided answered controlled by -- divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. it's now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report 114-192. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report 114-192 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 347 the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you mr. speaker. my amendment would strike a

harmful and politically driven provision on the underlying bill that has the effect of limiting stakeholder input and curbing equal access to justice, a core constitution principle in our republic, and effectively removes an important check we have on arbitrary actions by presidents and administrations. it hands -- absent my language, the underlying bill would hand president obama a blank slate in determining how we run our western lands. my bill will restore that balance and allow civil society stakeholders and local residents to be able to challenge illegal federal actions. while i respect and appreciate the impetus for many parts of this bill and support them particularly those aimed at incentivizing collaboratively development plans and fixing the flawed funding infrastructure -- funding structure for wildfire response, very, very important in my district. the provision that i'm striking in my amendment is truly a

poison pill for many on my side of the aisle who care deeply about equal access to justice and many on the other side of the aisle who don't want to hand president obama an unchecked control over federal lands. in districts like mine which are made up of 62% of federal land, the forest service owns huge amounts of open space that we use enjoy, as a driver of tourism of our economy hikers, skiers, used commercially by loggers, utility providers, many, many other groups. and i can attest to the fact that these groups, these stakeholders that i mentioned whose livelihood and enenjoyment depend on these lands, are extremely valuable when it comes to providing practical, vired input into managing our federal lands. this bill, however, would discourage and limit the depth and diversity of public input by expediting the development of forest management plans to

limit it protest after a plan. meaning not like the provision that i am trying to strike cripple the transparency by limiting the form of expertise we have in planning our federal lands, it also has the potential to repeal some critical rights, like the right to protest and legal recourse for potential wrongdoing. the provisions i move to strike would limit nonprofits, residents, independent advocacy organizations to file lawsuits against potentially illegal or improper forest management tools that the executive branch is using. by creating a harmful bonding requirement which would really exclude judicial access for everybody except the very wealthiest corporations and people and a fee shifting requirement that requires the government to act with impunity we break down the core

principle of equal access to justice which is our right. and by injunctions pending appeal in cases of postdraster operations after broadly defined events, we're only compounding the damage. again, mr. speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle's move to block the court's ability to make sound, thoughtful and transparent decisions if the executive branch acts illegally really will come at the expense of our local stakeholders for those of us who live in and around federal land. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you. i think it's important to realize there is nothing, absolutely nothing in the base bill that prohibits any individual or group from filing a lawsuit. what it does do is discourage frivolous lawsuits and to expand on that i yield one minute to the gentleman from montana, mr. zinke. the chair: the gentleman from montana is recognized for one minute. mr. zinke: we have to reward

collaboration and working together. what this bill does not do is not skirting nepa, skirting nepa. what it does though is bring people together to work together. that's what i was sent to washington, d.c. to do and that's what we were sent to do is work together and move the ball up the field. it does not prevent anyone from filing a lawsuit. what it does do however, on frivolous lawsuits and the numbers are clear between 1989 and 2008, over 1,125 lawsuits were submitted. almost in every case those lawsuits ended up costing the forest service that we're so concerned about the money they're spending, number one is forest fires. number two is litigation. so we want the same thing. we want more scientists, less lawyers in the woods and healthy forests once again to be part of our country. and yet, what happens is the collaborative effort -- and we made the definition of collaborative very vague so

everyone can participate. everybody. it does not prevent anyone from suing. what it does do is if you're not going to be involved in the collaborative effort, you're not going to spend the time, the resources, then you have to post a bond and that bond only covers what the forest service would have to defend. we could have made it a lot more aggressive. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: how much time remains on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from colorado has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from utah has 3 3/4. mr. polis: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlelady from massachusetts, ms. tsongas. the chair: the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. ms. tsongas: thank you, mr. polis. as my colleague stated title 3 would require anyone who challenges a project on forest land in the federal court system to put up a bond covering all litigation expenses of the government. plaintiffs would only get their bond back if they prevailed on all their claims. further, it would not allow

litigants to recover attorney's fees under the equal access to justice act. and while my colleagues across the aisle have said it doesn't prevent anyone from coming forward, we do know that the impact would be that it would prevent any plaintiffs except those large companies with deep pockets from bringing lawsuits against these projects. especially keeping out the average american citizen from having their voice heard. i strongly support this amendment and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from massachusetts yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i yield one minute to the gentleman from colorado, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. eric abover once said that every -- hoffer once said that every graduate cause becomes a movement which becomes a business which becomes a racket. well, that's what's happened with environmental litigation. through many hearings we've discovered that most of the

groups litigating collaborative projects sue just to raise money or to defeat necessary projects through delay. that is their right. no one begrudges them it, but that does not include frivolous litigation designed solely to run out the clock on salvage projects or to nullify by delay the painstaking work of collaborative group which often in good faith spend endless hours negotiating a plan that is fair to all. i oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: many of my constituents, i have constituents living in federal lands. what happens if federal land management policies changes their right of way makes it harder to access where they live, where are they supposed to come up with the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars it would take to bond under this scenario to figure out whether what the federal government did was legal or not? that's why we need to fix this, mr. speaker, and i urge my

colleagues to support my amendment, defend the constitutional rights of families who live in and around federal land, and i yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i appreciate the chance to hear from the gentleman from california as well as montana. you see, what happens and has been failed to be discussed here, this section only applies to whether it has been a collaborative process. so real people, citizens will spend years working together to develop a collaborative project and then to frequently outside fringe groups who don't live in the area, who do have big pockets, wait for those projects to be announced and then they start to litigate which has a chilling effect on any kind of collaborative work. which makes the hours, the hundreds of hours for those citizens who worked to come up with their projects simply moot. that's happened in california, i have been there to see those projects were stopped by frivolous lawsuits. same thing happens in montana. montana and northern idaho, in that particular district of all those lawsuits he mentioned, over 70% of those

were stopped because of frivolous lawsuits. we're not stopping anyone from suing, but what we are saying is, you put up a bond if you're serious about it, and you don't use this as a way of simply stopping a process that has been worked out by the citizens and the forest service at the same time. that's what this means. and that's what this is going to be taken away. that's why this is so essential, that this part has to be part of this bill. it has to move forward, or our forest service does not have the tools they need to preserve our forests. and to protect our people and protect our landscape. this amendment cannot pass. it would destroy every effort of every forest service to actually move forward into the future. we oppose it we oppose it viglouisry -- vigorously and in all due respect and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. polis: i request a record

vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? it is now in order to consider amendment number 2. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. tipton: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: will the clerk designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part c of house report 114-192 offered by mr. tipton of colorado.

the chair: the gentleman from colorado and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. tipton: i thank the gentleman. mr. chairman, congress has previously authorized fire liability provisions for stewardship contracts. my amendment simply provides the same fire liability provisions for long-term stewardship contracts awarded by the forest service prior to february 7 2014. these contracts have valid concerns over their potential liability and it is prohibitively expensive to obtain liability insurance to cover the cost of large forest fires. the amendment provides these contractors with the same protections as all federal timber sales and integrated resource similar ber purchasers and other integrated resource stewardship contracts that they already have. i'd like to urge my colleagues to support the amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? ms. tsongas: i rise to claim

time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. tsongas: i rise in opposition to this amendment which would change the parameters of contracts that have already been awarded through a competitive bidding process. stewardship end result contract something a critical tool used to achieve management goals across our national forests and grasslands. in addition to making the authority for stewardship contracting permanent, last year's farm bill directed the forest service to make the first liability provisions in integrated resource timber contracts equal to liability provisions typically found in timber sale contracts. earlier this year, the forest service issued rulemaking carrying out this directive. this was a commonsense change and i agree with the sponsors of this amendment that this is a worthwhile change. however, their amendment would retroactively extend the updated liability requirement to contracts that were awarded before the farm bill was signed into law. the forest service would therefore have to modify existing contracts, which is

not only a burden for the agency and the contract awardees, it is unfair to companies who did not participate in the competitive bidding process because of their understanding of the fire liability requirements. congress should not change contracts that have already been awarded through the competitive bidding process. for that reason i oppose adoption of this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. tipton: i thank the chairman. we're talking about fairness. we just had an amendment from my colleague out of colorado talking about fairness. i think chairman bishop spoke to it very eloquently in regards to allowing that process to be able to work through the private sector. but when we're talking about forest health, mr. chairman, wouldn't it be an appropriate thing to make sure that we have a level playing field when it comes to liability? if we want to be able to get in and actually protect those forests, be able to protect those watersheds, to be able to

protect endangered species, the other wildlife in the forest as well, let's make sure that we have a process to be able to do that to where that liability is not going to become a liability to something that i believe we all share as common ground and that is the health of our forests. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized. ms. tsongas: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. tipton: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor 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 3 printed in part c of house report 114-192. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new mexico seek recognition? ms. lujan grisham: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part c of house report 114-192 offered by ms.

lujan grich am of new mexico -- ms. lujan grich am of new mexico -- ms. lujan grisham of new mexico. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new mexico. ms. lujan grisham: mr. chair, i rise in support of my amendment that allows the forest service to establish a pilot program to execute contracts with tribes under the indian self-determination and education assistance act known as 638 contracts. 63 contracts allow tribes to -- 638 contracts allow tribes to implement federal programs in indian country. when i was the new mexico secretary of health i witnessed how successful and beneficial these contracts can be at efficiently delivering services to tribes and their members. through these contracts tribes operate hospitals, health clinics, mental health facilities and a variety of other community health services. having tribes manage and operate programs in their communities not only recognizes

tribal self-determination and self-governance but it also helps ensure that tribal needs are being met through traditionally and culturally appropriate meth oddses. although several -- methods. although several agencies have the authority to execute 638 contracts such as the bureau of lang manned -- land management, bureau of reclamation and bureau of indian affairs forest service does not currently have this authority. several tribes have expressed to me that they would like to see the forest service have these authorities. many in new mexico have land in tribal forests adjacent to national forests and we know that wildfires can quickly affect entire regions regardless of who owns the land. in fact, the wildland fire which is one of the largest wildfires in new mexico history started on june 26, 2011, in the santa fe national forest, and burned more than 156,000 acres in new mexico, including land belonging to the pueblos of santa clara other areas.

so it is imperative that the forest service and tribes actively work together to could manage forests. i urge -- co-manage forests. i urge you to support my amendment which will improve the forest service's ability to partner with tribes, to work on projects that impact tribal lands and forests. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from new mexico reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: i claim time in opposition although i may not be in opposition to this particular bill. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from utah is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: or this amendment. i would like to ask the gentlelady from new mexico if she would be willing, as as this bill works its way through the process ultimately being signed and implemented, be willing to work with us to make sure this contracting authority in the future has no unintended consequences. i would yield for a response. ms. lujan grisham: mr. chair absolutely. i appreciate that offer. thank you. mr. bishop: i appreciate that

and with that i would also like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of this amendment. i want to thank the ranking member from the conservation forest subcommittee for bringing this amendment forward. this amendment obviously you a loice -- obviously alowls the forest service to create a pilot program that will execute contracts with tribes to perform functions of the program. allowing forest service to execute contracts would recognize the government to government relationship that tribes have with the federal government and it would be in line with the intent of the tribal force protection act, of working with tribes as partners and so certainly would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentlewoman from new mexico is recognized. ms. lujan grisham: mr. chair i yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota congressman nolan. the chair: the gentleman from

minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. nolan: thank you mr. chairman. i want to particularly thank the gentlewoman from new mexico , ms. lujan grisham, for yielding, and for introducing this important amendment. there's an old saying that i know you've all heard, that the shadows of those who live on their land are the best protectors and the best stewards of that land. my wife and i have had the good fortune to plant over 100,000 trees on our land. and -- with the help of the kids. and i want you to know they're doing well. but i'm supportive of this amendment because i think it's high time that the american indians and the alaskan natives, who are the first stewards of our lands, be allowed to better exercise their sovereignty and their self-determination in caring for the forests they called home for untold centuries. we already have 638 contracts that allow the tribes to manage federal lands in indian country.