modern advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have allowed the united states access to large deposits of crude oil and natural gas. last year our country produced over 150 million barrels of crude oil and that number is steadily increasing. the crude oil in our deposits is lighter and sweeter than the traditional heavy crude oil our refineries process. the export ban hinders our access to international markets that need the sweeter type of crude and that have the refinement infrastructure for it. i am convinced that lifting the outdated crude oil export ban will create jobs and economic opportunities for our communities as we strive for greater energy independence. in the great state of texas, lifting the export ban is estimated to increase the annual g.d.p. by over $7.1 billion and create over 40,000

new supply chain jobs, according to the government accountability office, removing export restrictions will create employment -- i ask for 30 seconds additional. mr. barton: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds on behalf of congressman cuellar. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. hinojosa: according to the government accountability office, removing export restrictions will create employment opportunities, expand trade and lower gasoline prices. the economic and political landscape has evolved since the ban's inception in the 1970's, and i'm confident that now is the time to repeal the ban on the exports of crude oil to increase our economic energy competitiveness. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 702 and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr.

green. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to h.r. 702. in the past 10 years, the united states has undergone an energy revolution. it has far exceeded analysis and prediction. the success in this field has materialized in the jobs in our district in the houston district both in the chemical and refining industries. the price of oil dropped from $100 a barrel to $45 a barrel. gasoline prices have fallen from $4 per gallon to less than $2 in houston. i represented our refinery complexes for many years. all of this benefited our economy and the consumer. unfortunately, the success has brought hardship on the upstream producers. the energy sector, which led our country out of the recession, is now laid off -- has now laid off approximately 150,000 folks. bloomberg estimated 40% of these layoffs were in texas. i know the oil industry is facing a difficult time. that's why it's difficult for

me to oppose this bill today. i support crude oil exports while protecting our domestic manufacturing jobs, including refining. we have the resource. we should use as much as possible here at home and sell what's left. i'm a legislator that would like to solve this problem and i like working across party lines to get results. i worked with my good friend joe barton many years in congress. in fact, we sat together at the texas a&m football game until we -- they beat mississippi state, we sat across -- way apart. so we didn't jinx them. and for months i talked with representative barton about the crude export issue. the crude export ban was set in place in 1975. in the 1970's the united states were in a tough spot and we put the ban in place to protect our national interest. that's more than 40 years of legislative history, and before we throw out -- that away, we

should make sure we have a policy that makes sense for the next 40 years. i'm hoping we could craft a bill that would create a process within the department of commerce that would establish authorization and reporting requirements for crude oil. crude oil's a valuable national resource, and the government should have some oversight as to where and when we send it overseas. we export liquefied natural gas through a process developed through the department of energy. i have not been a fan of that process, but we worked to improve it. we should have some of the basic requirements of the department of commerce to oversee crude. unlike l.n.g., crude is a raw commodity. unlike refined products, crude doesn't have the added value. our refiners add value to that and we export that refined product so there are jobs created in our economy. building l.n.g. -- exporting refined product creates good jobs and lots of capital expenditure. if exporting crude is the right policy let's do it correctly.

let's maximize the benefits for the united states. let's make sure that the u.s. crude doesn't end up in the hands of north korea or other foes. know where this resource is going, how much is being sent and how often it is being sent there. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to place the remainder of my statement into the record and oppose the bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: mr. speaker, i'm going to yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, for a minute, but i want to recognize myself for 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. barton: to respond to what congressman green just said. the whole concept of this bill is to let willing buyers interact with willing sellers in a free market, transparentction fashion. if you subject the bill to some sort of discretionary permitting -- as mr. green's amendment would have done, you gut the bill. you desteroid entire purpose of the bill. as much as i respect my good friend from houston, texas, i respectfully had to object to

that amendment. with that i want to yield one minute to the gentleman from the garden state of new jersey, mr. lance, a member of the committee. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. lance: thank you, mr. speaker, and i commend chairman emeritus barton's tremendous leadership on this issue. i rise today in strong support of the bill, bipartisan in nature, which will create thousands of american jobs, generate billions of dollars in revenue to states and locales and use our nation's natural resources as a counterbalance to the rogue actors currently dominating world oil markets. american energy brings security and independence to the world and jobs and economic development to the united states. it makes no sense that iranian oil will soon be permitted to flow, but american-made energy is left untapped. it's time to end the outdated restrictions on the export of u.s. oil and instead protect

and create thousands of u.s. jobs, help keep prices at the pump affordable for all consumers across the country. american energy brings growth, osperity, security and independence to the united states and our allies. our nation should counter iran and create thousands of u.s. jobs in the process. please vote for h.r. 702. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, can i ask how much time there is on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has 20 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas has 24 minutes remaining. mr. pallone: would the gentleman like to have another speaker? mr. barton: if it makes my friend from new jersey happy -- the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: i'd like to recognize an original co-sponsor and strong proponent of this bill, the gentleman from the great state of new mexico, mr. pearce for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for one minute. mr. pearce: i thank the chairman for yielding and

appreciate his work on this important proposition. for almost my entire life, the nation has worked under prevailing science that said that we have reached peak energy, we are out, that we have to plan for the future because we have no more oil. two years ago a discovery was found in new mexico that will provide more oil from that one find than has produced in its state through the entire geographic part of new mexico. the science was a lie. we are finding oil. what's happening right now is that the refineries use heavy sour crude. the new finds in shale are producing light sweet which is more valuable. it's easier to refine, and yet that light sweet oil is sitting in the pipelines in new mexico trying to get to houston. it's selling at $17 below the market cost because there is no destination. the baltics said they would use

our oil, they'd put our workers back to work, but this law prevents it, the law in place. 702 simply says open that door and put americans back to work. americans driving trucks, americans at the convenient stores, americans everywhere get the jobs. the idea that this somehow undercuts jobs is absolutely a frivolous idea to present on this house floor. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from illinois. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. rush: i want to thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, over the past couple months i have worked tirelessly to find a reasonable compromise with the sponsor of h.r. 702, my friend and colleague, mr. barton. that would allow me and others with similar constituencies to support this bill. although i share the concerns of many on -- of my democratic

colleagues of how this bill might impact the environment and climate change, i have always stated that i believe in the all-of-the-above energy approach that balances environmental concerns and economic opportunities. mr. speaker, yesterday in the rules committee, i advocated for an open rule process that would have allowed democrats to offer amendments that will reflect priorities and concerns of the minority party. fact, mr. speaker, i myself submitted an amendment that would have expanded access for minority and women-owned firms to more fully participate in the energy supply chain which we know will be greatly enhanced if the export ban is lifted.

mr. speaker, although my friends in the environmental community wouldn't agree in my district we say oil is not just a commodity. oil is indeed an economic opportunity. mr. speaker, my most pressing concern is making sure upfront that minority firms would be a part of the pipeline economy and would directly benefit from vendor and contracting opportunities that lifting this ban would create. instead, mr. speaker, despite positive rhetoric from members of the majority party, a closed rule was adopted, and while my comprehensive amendment was not allowed, members are asked to vote now on a -- on trojan horse amendments that would do

nothing to lifting -- actually lifting benefits for minorities and women, as my far-reaching amendment was designed to do. . rather than showing the majority party from the charges of creating a multibillion dollar boondoggle for the energy industry, today there's not much in this bill as currently drafted that i can point to that's really benefiting all segments of the american population. as i have said time and time nd time again cut us in or cut it out. cut us in or cut it out. cut women in or cut it out. cut minorities in or cut it out. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pallone: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional

minute. the gentleman yields back? the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: we'll put the gentleman from illinois down as undecided on the bill. i'd like to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman who is the chairman of the republican study committee and member of the committee, home of the fighting texas aggies, mr. flores, of brian college station, texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. flores: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 702. h.r. 702 results in five key benefits. number one, it benefits the american consumer with resulting overall lower energy prices. this particularly benefits lower income and lower middle income americans providing greater financial security for these hardworking families. number two, it benefits the american producer and allows them to further reinvest in our domestic energy infrastructure,

furthering our energy security and american jobs. number three, it benefits our geopolitical standing and strengthens ties with our global friends and allies in hurts countries like russia, iran, and venezuela who are opposed to american interests around the wormed. number four, it benefits the down stream refining community as lower price also stimulate volume demand for refined products. this gives capital to higher skilled american workers and reinvest in their operations. number five, it strengthens our national defense by enharsing the maritime security program which supports a robust merchant marine for the use of our military during times international crisis. these are five critical reasons why everybody wins after we lift the ban. the president's threatened to veto this commonsense bill. and hardworking american families all over this country should ask it, mr. president, why are you putting the interest of our hardworking families -- excuse me, of iranian terrorists ahead of the

interest of hardworking american families? i strongly urge my colleagues to reject the amash amendment and support h.r. 702. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time of the the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for three minutes. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank our ranking member. i oppose this legislation for several reasons. first, except in very narrow circumstances the bill does not allow any limits, not any limits on exports of domestic oil regardless of potential threats to our national security. and that is our top responsibility as members. our national security. for decades there's been a bipartisan commitment in congress and several administrations to energy independence and reducing our reliance on foreign oil. given the continued dependence

of our economy and military on oil, energy independence remains critical to our national defense. but with little consideration of any national security implications, this bill allows unlimited exports of a critical strategic resource. the united states still imports 26% of the oil we consume, and remains the world's top importer. every barrel exported under this bill would have to be replaced by a barrel imported from elsewhere, leaving us more reliant on foreign countries. the bill allows the president to limit exports only if he declares an emergency under the national emergencies act or the international emergency economic powers act, or if he is directed by the international energy agency to respond to an international supply crisis. outside of these narrow

circumstances, the bill permits no restrictions on exports of crude oil. this means strategic considerations, such as decreasing our reliance on imports from unfriendly regimes can play no part in deciding whether to allow exports. i don't think that's a good deal. at all. the bill also has drastic or will have drastic impacts on the u.s. shipbuilding industry. tanker fleet, and refineries, all of which are critical to our national defense. congress has recognized for nearly 100 years that it benefits our national security to maintain a robust domestic shipbuilding industry and commercial shipping fleet. for example, crude exports from alaska, which were legalized in 1995, must be carried on u.s. flag vessels crewed by

americans. this bill contains no requirement that exports be carried on u.s. flat tankers. under current law, the president can allow exports of crude oil if he finds they are in the national interest. this bill would allow unlimited exports regardless of whether they are in the national security interest of the united states or not. i think that this is a slippery slope. commander kirk, the retired navy captain of the u.s.s. cole, testified before congress earlier this year and he said, quote, the national security -- may i have 20 seconds? mr. pallone: additional 30 seconds. ms. eshoo: i thank the gentleman. the retired navy captain of the u.s.s. cole said the following, the national security implications of changing this existing policy, regulating the

export of crude oil, are rife with unknown and probably unintended consequences that must be fully considered and addressed, unquote. i agree with the commander. this bill largely ignores those important national security concerns and it's why i urge my colleagues to oppose it. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: i want to recognize the gentleman from the energy capital of the world, houston texas, texas two, mr. poe of texas, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, the administration has worked very hard to make sure the export ban on crude oil from iran is lifted. but the administration has threatened to veto this bill that would lift the crude oil

sanction ban on american oil. that doesn't make any sense to me. help the iranians sell their excess crude oil abroad, but prevent america from selling our excess crude oil abroad. that's nutty. why does the president fiscal year the iranians over americans? doesn't make any sense. the president should at least give us the same deal that he gave the iranians. let them -- lift the sanctions on them, lift the sanctions on american oil. we have a surplus, we need to sell it. use all we can. sell the rest. that's the motto. that's just the way it is. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from texas roiches. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i believe we are lopsided on the time again. i would like to reserve. mr. barton: could we ask what the time differential is? the chair: the gentleman from texas has 20 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from new jersey as 14 minutes remaining.

the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: at this time i'm very honored to recognize the distinguished chairman of the energy and commerce committee, from the great state of michigan, my good friend, mr. upton, for two minutes. chairman upton for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. upton: thank you, mr. speaker. i really thank chairman emeritus barton for doing a really significant good job on getting this bill, bipartisan support, and working so hard over the last 18 months or so. both in the last congress and this congress, to get this bill ready for the floor today. mr. speaker, much has changed since the ban on crude oil was put in place in 1975. and at time congress president ford were responding to the arab oil embargo crisis in an effort to protect this country from the unwanted impacts of the unstable global crude oil market.

but we got good news today. imes have changed. one of the biggest threats to american energy boom today is not an international actor but rather our own ban on oil exports. lifting the crude oil export ban is a win for our economy. yes, it is. study after study has shown that lifting the ban would actually lower prices at the bump, create thousands of jobs, generate hundreds of millions of dollars in economic benefits and strengthen our geopolitical influence across the globe. it will actually also reduce the deficit by more than $1 billion with additional oil royalties. these are real benefits that will be felt not only in southwest michigan, my district, but across the country. yet somehow this administration does not support this thoughtful solution. let's look at the benefits. according to the nonpartisan g.a.o., lifting the ban could 13 cents es by 1.5 to per gallon. real savings for every family's

budget. some have suggested it could support the creation of an average of 394,000 jobs. additionally, the bill before us would boost royalty payments from federal oil and gas leases. collectively all of these gains provide the makings of a success story that would greatly benefit our economy at a time of great uncertainty. this administration often likes to say that they are for an all-of-the-above energypolicy. but the rhetoric falls well short of reality. it doesn't make much sense that the white house is gung ho to lift the export ban in iran, but when it comes to this country, the answer is no. additional 30 seconds. mr. barton: happy to yield an additional 30 second. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. upton: this bipartisan bill would strengthen our hand in foreign diplomacy at a time when america has lost its standing on the global stage. by exporting our excess crude oil, we can help our allies seek a safe and secure supply of energy instead of being

beholden to opec and russia for their energy needs, they can instead rely on their friends, the united states of america. creating jobs, keeping energy affordable, boosting energy production, improving our energy security, that's what this bill does. i would urge my colleagues to support the barton bill. in a vote later on this morning. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yield back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 702. not only does this bill incentivize more oil development while ignoring its impacts on our climate, it also essentially guarantees billions more in profits for oil companies while doing virtually nothing to help consumers. there are many more important issues that we should be spending our time on to

actually help american families. like raising the minimum wage. making college more affordable. instead we are passing a bill to help oil companies make more money. additionally, section 3 of the bill prohibits any federal official from taking any action that could potentially restrict the export of oil. this broad language could seriously undermine critical health and safety responsibilities of the federal government. for example, under current law the secretary of transportation has the authority to shut down a crude oil pipeline if it poses a threat to life, property, or the environment. but what if an oil pipeline leading to an export terminal were in imminent danger of rupp turing? would the secretary still have the authority to shut down that line? or would that action be considered a restriction on exporting crude oil under this bill? these are not hypothetical questions. this authority was recently used in my district to shut down line 901 of the plains all

american pipeline when it ruptured last may. since line 901 is the only way for the nearby offshore oil platforms to transports their oil to refineries, these platforms have had to shut down production entirely. nearly five months after the spill, line 901 remains shut down and there has been no indication it will be restarted in the near future. it's not hard to imagine a similar event happening again, and the secretary's authority to protect public health, property, and the environment during such an event must not be undermined. yet if this bill were law, the secretary's authority could be preempted entirely by section 3 of this bill. in other words, the bill could create a scenario in which the perceived right of oil companies to export their oil supersedes our very real responsibility to protect public health and safety. the american people deserve better. this is a fatally flawed bill

sets the wrong priorities. i urge its defight. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. . mr. barton: i yield two minutes to the distinguished republican whip, mr. scalise of district 1 and the great republican state of louisiana. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: i want to thank the chairman and my friend from texas for yielding and also his leadership for bringing this bill to the floor and building a strong bipartisan coalition to finally lift the ban on oil exports. mr. chairman, this is the relic of the 1970's that doesn't fit with today's world economy but it also doesn't fit with a revolution that has happened in american energy because of american technology. we have an abundance of natural resources now and an abundance of oifment we literally could be the saudi arabia of -- oil. we literally could be the saudi arabia of energy and there is a

an on the books that has a limitation on the ability to sell the natural resource. mr. chairman, at a time when the president is supporting this horrible deal with iran and allows iran to export their oil to the world markets the president at the same time is saying he opposes this bill that allows america to export its oil. and what's at stake, mr. chairman? what's at stake under this bill if this bill passes will create over 800,000 american jobs. good american jobs here at home. if this bill passes, mr. chairman, we can actually create over $800 million to reduce the deficit. deficit reduction just by passing this bill. what's also at stake, mr. chairman, if we pass this bill, we can help our allies around the world. who don't want to have to get their oil from countries like russia where vladimir putin is

using energy as a weapon against our friends, they can now get that energy from us, creating american jobs along the way. everything about this says yes. it's time to lift this relic of the 1970's. let's finally let american oil to be exported on the world markets when we have such an abundance and we have the ability to create hundreds of thousands of new american jobs along the way. i urge my colleagues to support the bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texasry serves -- texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. castor: i rise in opposition to h.r. 702. it's a giveaway to bill oil at the expense of -- big oil at the expense of american consumers and our long-standing policy of working towards energy independence. now, our current policy is not

a ban. you can call it a ban but it's not a ban. it allows and promotes oil exports to strategically important allies, to places in the national interest. it is a smart policy, but now ig oil wants free rein to ship natural resources to countries not in our national interest. this bill would eviscerate our policy. and despite assertions that oil will go to europe and elsewhere, that is not supported by the facts. who is most likely to benefit? experts say china. the energy information administration projects that china's oil consumption will double over the next two decades. now, china has been very aggressive all across the globe in exploiting and locking down natural resources. they've gone to africa. they've gone to south america.

while we've been fighting battles in afghanistan, they've been locking down contracts for natural resources in afghanistan. and at the same time that merica is dealing with chinese cyberespionage and their geopolitical confrontations with our allies and the u.s., why would we help china gain a strategic foot hold on america's natural resources? i would think that america's national security interests would compel you to defeat this bill. you should also vote this bill down and side with american consumers instead and american jobs. america is still heavily dependent on imports of crude oil. .e still import 25% today and he claims that sending american oil overseas would help consumers and america is

entirely unsupported no many how many times they say it. instead, what the studies show is that exporting american oil would feed the uncertainty of oil markets and likely increase cost to american consumers. now, back home in tampa right now you can go to the gas station and fill up your tank at about $1.99 per gallon. so it defies logic to say that changing this policy that's working for america right now would really lower the price? i don't think so. and american jobs are also very likely to take a hit if this bill becomes law. why? because of the important jobs in the refining industry, the shipping industry. those are american jobs. side with the american jobs. this bill is very poor public policy. exports would be determined only by big oil to serve the -- est of big oil the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. castor: could i have 10 more seconds?

mr. pallone: 30 seconds. ms. castor: just to close, mr. speaker. the cost of energy independence, our national security interests compel a no vote on this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from cincinnati, ohio, the buckeye state, mr. steve chabot, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. chabot: thank you, mr. speaker. i have the honor of leading the house small business committee. a few months back we held a hearing on this very topic. we heard from small businesses about how this ban is holding them back. that's the untold story of this. this ban is hurting small businesses all across this country. america's now the largest producer of oil and gas in the world. lifting this decades' old ban is an opportunity to jump-start the economy. it would help a million americans find work. it would increase the g.d.p.

it would narrow the frayed deficit, atrack new capital to the u.s. and stabilize the global energy supply. if america is going to lead the world in the 21st century, let's not keep one hand tied behind our back. let's replace outdated energy policies with ones that are forward thinking, ones that will create new jobs in a new american century. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ohio yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you very much, mr. speaker. ladies and gentlemen, this bill is about two things. it's about jobs and it's about national security. and it would give us an opportunity to get congress to join in with my good friend from north dakota, kevin crammer and brad ashford from

nebraska because this is about jobs. nobody needs jobs more than african-americans, and the hardest hit on unemployment is african-american males. in allows us to be a part of being able to get language in that will help african-american males get the kind of apprenticeship training with the teamsters, with the afl-cio, with the operating engineers, all of those unions and contractors who are rebuilding this infrastructure for this. now on national security, make no mistake about it, ladies and gentlemen. what do you think russia is doing over in the middle east? they want dominance over energy in the world, and he who controls the energy in the world controls the world. and that's why they want to prop up syria, because that is the sea port to get it out of the middle east. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scott: stand up for jobs for the american people and

protect the world from russia. vote for to lift the ban. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: i want to say amen to what the gentleman said. how much time remains on each side the chair: the gentleman from texas has 15 minutes remaining. the gentleman from new jersey has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. barton: i want to yield one minute to the entire delegation from the great state of north dakota, mr. cramer, original co-sponsor of the bill, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from north dakota is recognized for one minute. mr. cramer: i thank the chairman and i thank you, mr. speaker. i've often said i don't know why it takes 36 texans to do one person's job. mr. barton: i take my time back. mr. cramer: but i have to tell you, i was prepared to give a great speech and i listen to my friend from georgia and quite honestly i feel inadequate to the task because you stated it so eloquently and beautifully. i'm committed to what you

talked about. so maybe what i'll try to do instead in my remaining seconds is remind us of the context that it was 72 years ago this week that the yom kippur war broke out that led to u.s. aid to israel which led to a 5% reduction of opec which led to the very issue that we're talking about today, that this historical context and a national security context is not irrelevant and that let's not, i would say, let history repeat itself but let's use the peaceful tools of energy development while creating jobs in america replace the weapons of war in europe and in the middle east. let's use our influence for good by selling this american-made product that's produced by american workers and let's do it in a bipartisan fashion today. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized.

mr. pallone: i'd continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: i would -- i would yield on behalf of congressman uellar one minute to mr. ryan. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. ryan: i thank the gentleman. i'm normally on the opposite side of the gentleman on the congressional baseball team and normally with congressman doyle so i hope we can win this one against congressman mike doyle. so i thank the gentleman for the opportunity. two or three points i'd like to make, mr. speaker. one, in ohio this ban means -- lifting this ban means 16,000 jobs in ohio. almost $3 billion in investment. our friends in the operating engineers and the laborers who will do that work are supportive of this bill. i know we have some issues with the refineries and i think we need to continue to work on that and see if we can fix that

issue. we have a number of studies that say the savings to the american consumers will be anywhere from two cents a gallon all the way up to 12 cents a gallon. columbia university, brookings, aspen, resources for the future all are saying this is going to reduce the cost of gas, which is a direct benefit for our consumers and our constituents who need it as we see this huge economic squeeze for the middle class. lastly, i've been sitting on the defense appropriations committee now for a number of years, and this issue here can directly benefit our ability to deal with what's happening in the middle east. can i get an additional 15 seconds? mr. barton: we yield the gentleman from ohio an additional 30 seconds on the understanding he will not play his best game against us next summer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. ryan: i yield back -- no. i'd also like to say sitting on

the defense appropriations committee, we sit in these classified briefings, we see what's happening with russia, we see what putin's doing. we see what's happening in the middle east, the ukraine. we need to export this oil. we need to export our natural gas. we need to have a bigger footprint in the world so that we can make sure that our allies have access to consistent energy flows coming here from the united states and creating jobs here in the united states. michelle, a c.e.o. and founder of the center for new american security, former undersecretary of defense for policy under president obama, says by lifting the ban on u.s. exports of crude oil, u.s. policymakers have an extraordinary opportunity to enhance not only our economic vitality but also our national security. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield one minute to the gentleman from minnesota. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the gentleman and, mr. chairman, i support

removing restrictions on the export of crude oil from the united states and urge my olleagues to support h.r. 702. current export laws are outdated. since these laws were last visited nearly 40 years ago, u.s. oil production has increased significantly and the united states is now the largest producer of oil and gas. studies have shown that lifting the current ban on crude oil exports will create jobs, many in the rural areas, and we in our part of the world have seen the benefits domestic drilling can provide by looking at our neighboring state of north dakota. we need to do everything we can to support the use and production of domestic energy. h.r. 702 is an important part of that, and following this bill's approval, i hope all members of congress will continue to support an all-of-the-above domestic energy production strategy by considering the national security and the economic development benefits of not just oil production but of production and related

policies. mr. speaker, i strongly support h.r. 702 and yield back the balance of my time. . mr. barton: i'd like to recognize the gentleman from texas, member of the committee, sponsor of the bill, mr. pete olson. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. i thank my friend. this picture shows why we have to have -- end this ban on crude exports. ctober, 1973, opec cut us off. we are getting 1.2 million barrels a day from opec. that dropped down to a scant 19,000. gas prices doubled. you could gas for your lawn mauer, you had to get in hine behind cars. because of american innovation,

that world is gone. we are now awash in american crude oil. opec's days of dominance are over. but we can't deliver knockout blow until we end the ban on american crude exports which will do -- which we'll do in a few short minutes. when that happens, american families will have lower prices at the pump. nations like venezuela, russia, iran whose influence -- mr. barton: an additional 15 seconds. mr. olson: mr. create thousands and thousands and -- will create thousands and thousands of good paying american jobs. ask my colleagues vote today to end the ban on crude oil

exports. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: again, i would continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. gentleman from texas virginia tech. mr. barton: i want to recognize the gentleman from the great buckeye state of ohio, mr. stivers, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. stivers: i like to thank the gentleman from texas for yielding, for his extraordinary work on this bifment this bill is important for our national security. it's important for jobs. we need to end the oil export ban so we can export oil that's been generated as part of this energy revolution in this country that's going to be great for jobs and help our national security partners around the world. let's make the world safer. let's give america more jobs. let's end the oil export ban. please support this bill today. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, this is ill-advised legislation. my friends on the other side of the aisle claim 800,000 jobs, a million jobs. they don't have any real defined ability to provide such an estimate. it's a number that's made up because there will be offsetting, as some of the speakers have acknowledged, there will be offset -- offsetting job losses as a result of what's going to happen in the refining industry or what's going to happen in terms of some of the transport. that's beside the point. we actually have a policy that is working. there will come a time, perhaps, when it makes sense in a strategic matter to make an

adjustment. right now the president has the latitude to be able to help some of our strategic partners. he has that flexibility. we are awash of oil in this country, and to expect that somehow exporting more of it is going to make a dramatic impact at the pump here is a pipe dream. it won't. it might make a modest impact. but what we could do is provide a benefit to the large oil companies as part of a larger package that would help everybody. we have expiring tax provisions, for instance. dealing with the production tax shed, dealing with wind and solar that actually create far more jobs than will be found in the refining and oil production . these are good family-wage jobs all across the country. let's put together a package that speaks to alternative energy, continuity.

that speaks to conservation. that speaks to a long-term strategy that is a win-win. i'm absolutely confident that my friend, mr. pallone, mr. barton could sit down and deal with a package that would have far more benefit for america if you're going to hand out another goody to the oil companies. leapt's have a more omprehensive approach that meets our comprehensive energy needs. this bill doesn't do t the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. gentleman from texas virginia tech. mr. barton: may i ask the time, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from texas has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from new jersey has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. barton: we would like on behalf of mr. cuellar to yield one minute to either mr. ashford or mr. costa. i see mr. costa on the floor. mr. costa of california one minute on behalf of mr. guy yar -- cuellar. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. costa: i'd like to thank

the gentleman from texas for yielding. as some my colleagues have mentioned, the ban on crude oil exports is an outdatedpolicy. it was a 1975 that it was enacted. a lot has changed since 1975. i believe in this bipartisan commonsense solution is needed to develop a comprehensive effort to deal with our energy policy in america that deals with both our short-term and long-term needs. i think we have to use all the tools in our energy toolbox and i think this is part of that effort. new technologies have provided the united states with an abundance of crude oil that's only continuing in nature, combined with our renewables and other energy sources. we need to understand that this is about stimulating our economy. and creating jobs. it also has a very important geopolitical influence on bad actors like russia and iran who use energy as a political weapon. i understand there are concerns about my colleagues on eliminating this ban and the

negative impacts it will have. especially i have some concerns with small and midsized domestic refineries which i represented. will the gentleman yield another 30 seconds. mr. barton: i can give you 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. costa: this is a work in progress. we obviously need to address a number of other issues with the senate, but i remind my colleagues this is important. it's about jobs, the economy, and providing alternatives of energy to russia and iran and that's why i support this legislation as we continue to work together in a bipartisan fashion. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: because of the time i would reserve again. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: i want to yield a minute and a half to the distinguished subcommittee chairman of the armed services committee, mr. duncan hunter of the golden state state of california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. hunter: i thank the gentleman from texas. i'm voting for this bill

overall. and in california we don't drill anymore. we are cutting down on our refineries even. but this is important for the nation. one big part of this bill is the maritime security program. if you don't know it, over 90% of all the stuff that we transfer to iraq, afghanistan, anywelfare reform there is erican troops, -- anywhere where there is american troops, everything for the most part is shipped on american flag commercial vessels. of the 50,000 ships, cargo ships that travel the ocean, every day, 79 of those are american flags. that's it. 79 out of 50,000. 60 of those are on call when america needs them to transfer our gear to our troops overseas. when i was a lieutenant in the marine corps, my second tour in 2004, i drove down to the san diego port with my marine battery and we loaded up all the equipment that we would then fall in on in iraq two months later.

without the maritime security program plus up that is in this bill, we would not be able to go fight wars. we would not be able to move our equipment. we would not be able to support our troops. this is a national security bill. it's not only national security because it's energy security, but it's national security because that's how we support our troops overseas is with the maritime security program which this bill pluses up. i just want to say thank you to the chairman and everybody who supports this. i urge my colleagues to not just support energy security, but support national security. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from texas, miss johnson. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. thank you very much, mr. speaker. i had planned to support this bill. as a matter of fact as a co-sponsor.

but since i have been unable to remove myself from the co-sponsorship, i wish to speak on the record regarding my opposition to this particular bill. while i believe that congress should consider the potential for all energy sources to meet our nation's current and future needs, i believe that this legislation lacks the proper safeguards and oversight for such a major change in our nation's energy policy. the bill does not appropriately consider the implications of our national security, economy, consumers, and especially the environment. exporting crude oil does not increase demand for oil or diminutively decrease the number of u.s. jobs in the energy sector. on the contrary, many u.s. jobs that are down stream in the domestic refining process may be threatened. in addition, exporting oil to foreign countries for refining

purposes would likely increase overall co-2 emissions. mr. chairman i will -- mr. pallone: i yield another 30 seconds. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. the bottom line is that we must consider many factors related to our energy portfolio before we lift any current restrictions. and i ask unanimous consent to put my entire statement in the record. thank you. the chair: that will be covered by general leave. the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: on behalf of mr. cuellar, i wish to yield two minutes to the gentleman from the peach state of georgia, mr. bishop. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i come to the floor today to express my support of h.r. 702, much needed legislation which would lift the arbitrary ban on the export of one of our country's most abundant natural

resources, crude oil. the current ban on exports is a relic of a different time before we, as a nation, knew just how much crude oil we have stored in the earth across this contry. we are entirely too dependent on foreign oil sources, particularly from countries who have no regard for the american economy. today is different. in fact, from the period between 2000 and 2013, u.s. production of crude oil increased by nearly 14 fold from 250,000 barrels per day to 3.5 million. with this large amount of excess capacity, we can sell our oil to the global market which will bring u.s. crude prices in line with global prices and global prices with go down because of the increased supply. no less than 68% of consumers of cost of gasoline and 57% for diesel fuel come from the price of the source, crude oil. numerous studies have shown that the increased global supply will lead to lower

prices at the pump. not only will consumers have more money to spend on school ply splie, food, clothing, and other household tapesles, but the prices thieves goods will go down because the cost to transport them from manufacturer to store will decrease. and possibly more importantly we have to consider the security implications of allowing the export of crude. we are in the position of showing the world that we can provide a stable source of energy to friendly countries around the globe. our supplies will dilute the market share of unfriendly countries and weaken their grip on our democratic ally nations who have to depend on some of our unfriendly countries for their oil supplies. we can provide an alternative source to those who don't want to support our adversaries and their adversaries. i thank my colleagues, mr. cuellar, mr. barton for bringing forth this critically important legislation. i urge my colleagues in the house to vote yes on h.r. 702. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i would reserve because of the time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: mr. speaker, we only have two speakers, myself and mr. cuellar. i believe i have the right to close. i'd ask my friend from new jersey how many speakers he still has. mr. pallone: just myself and mr. garamendi. mr. barton: i would at this time reserve and ask -- the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. mr. barton: we are ready to close. mr. pallone: can i ask how much time remains on our side? the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has 3 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. pallone: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: mr. chairman, we have before us a very, very important issue. it is a national security issue. my good friend from san diego spoke to one part of our

nation's security, that's the ability of our nation to move its interest around the world. not just with airplanes but with ships. . unfortunately this is a narrowly constructed piece of legislation that speaks to the interest of the petroleum industry and the many of thousands people that work there. we concede. that this could also be a boone to another part of our nation's security and that's our maritime industry. unfortunately the bill does not do that. while it does deal with the maritime security program, and that's good, it does not deal in full potential with what we can do, and that is to require that this strategic asset, oil, be shipped on american-built ships with american mariners. that's not in the bill. it should be. it could be. and if it were our shipyards and our mariners all around this nation would have tens of thousands of jobs. and we would secure yet, not only the interest of our petroleum industry, but also the interest of our maritime

industry as well as the shipyards upon which this nation's national had defense depends. put it in the bill and then let's see how many votes you can get. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back his time. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: mr. speaker, i want yield two minutes to my chief sponsor, the gentleman that represents south texas, the eagle frled shale, the honorable and great henry cuellar. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. cuellar: thank you very much, mr. barton, for yielding. and thank you for the leadership that you have provided in this bill. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 702, that repeals the banon crude oil. you know, this ban reflects an america of yesterday. it's our job as members of congress that our laws reflect the america of tomorrow. and if you look at why this is important, this ban hurts the economy and prevents the

creation of jobs. this ban imposes an estimated $200 billion to $300 billion cost to the economy. and discourages domestic made in america crude oil production. by lifting the ban now, we will create 359,000 new jobs. how do i know? because i represent the eagleford, and i've seen small business people, men and women that work very hard every single day to have this type of job, and i think we owe it to them and across the nation. this ban also reduces the federal direct spending by $1.4 billion, so it -- according to the c.b.o. so it also helps our deficit. this ban is something that we need to change and we need to make sure that we lift this ban. what about gasoline prices? you heard mr. ryan. you heard other folks. according to the general accounting office, this will bring prices down from 1.5 cents to 13 cents.

c.b.o., same thing. five cents to 10 cents. the administration's own agency, the energy information administration, says it would bring down one penny or remain. doesn't go up, it goes down. this ban also doesn't allow us to use our powers in the foreign policy. why are we allowing russia or iran to dictate what happens in this world? and this is why we need to make sure that we support the repealing of this ban. now, who supports this? mr. barton, you know it's a bipartisan bill. democrats and republicans support this bill. but it's also supported by business, small business owners, and by some of the labor organizations. we've talked to those labor organizations. mr. speaker, support h.r. 702, a bipartisan bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i yield myself the remaining time. the chair: two minutes are

remaining. the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, let me point out that the administration, the president has issued a sap saying he would veto this bill. this bill is going nowhere because of that veto and the potential for a veto. all this legislation does is give a windfall of $30 billion in profits to the oil industry. no strings attached. no sacrifices required. the legislation is opposed by over 40 environmental groups. the united steel workers, the ibew, the blue-green alliance, the industrial energy consumers of america, and most importantly, mr. chairman, the american public who, regardless of party, support investing in refineries at home rather than lifting crude export restrictions. in fact, around 70% of voters oppose allowing oil companies to export more u.s. oil. the republican majority has penalty is the whole week doing little more than attacking women's health and assisting big oil for their big profits. it's time to come together in the name of energy and national security, in the name of

commonsense and economic good sense. i urge a no vote on this bill and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: can i inquire how much time i have? the chair: the gentleman from texas has 3 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. barton: mr. speaker, i yield myself the bam of the time. the chair: the gentleman from texas -- balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that i revise and extend. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. barton: mr. speaker, we've had a very enlightening debate for the last hour. i'd say 30 members of congress have stood up and spoken eth eelt -- either in favor or opposition to the bill. i want it to be noted that we've had a large number of my friends on the democratic side have rissen in support of the bill. -- risen in support of the bill. i want to compliment mr. cuellar for his strong leadership in that area. this is a bipartisan bill. when we do our town hall meetings, mr. speaker, person

after person stands up and says, why can't you folks in congress get along? why don't you try to be positive? why don't you try to do what's right for america? why don't you work together in a bipartisan basis? mr. speaker, that's what this bill does. this is a bipartisan bill. we have a large number of democratic co-sponsors and a large number of republicans. this bill will help all 50 states and has, as mr. bishop has stated and mr. scott has stated on the democratic side, it helps low income, it helps minority, it helps women, it helps every sector of the economy. not just the oil industry, not just the rough necks, not just the drillers. it helps truck drivers, it helps steel workers, it even helps refinery workers, it helps computer programmers, you name it, it helps it. some estimates are this bill if

enacted would create as many as a million jobs. we know for a fact that the collapse in oil prices in the last year and a half has cost the u.s. economy over $500 -- 500,000 jobs. 750,000 jobs. those are real people. that's not big oil, mr. speaker. that's people that get up every morning, kiss their wives, hop in their car, go to work, work hard, eight, 10, 12 hours a day, get the bills at the end of the month and hope, do they have enough money to pay the bills? it's blue collar america. it's not big oil. it's everybody in this country, mr. speaker. this bill is a market-based bill. willing buyer, willing seller. the u.s. has the largest oil reserves in the world. we have the capability to be number one in the world. why on god's green earth don't we use it? why are we the only nation in

the world that is restricted in one of the blessings that god has endowed our great nation with? we could produce, if we wanted to, up to 20 million barrels a day. we're producing right now nine million barrels a day. u.s. oil can go anywhere in the world if we allow it to. that is an economic asset, it is a military strategic asset. all we have to do is repeal an archaic law that was passed in 1975, when we couldn't export a barrel of oil if we wanted to. we were importing 2/3 of our oil. so, we have a bipartisan bill that helps everybody in america , that is in the economic interest of america, that is in the environmental interest of america, that is in the military strategic interest of america. mr. speaker, let's work together, let's send this bill

to the senate with a strong bipartisan support -- with strong bipartisan support. god bless america, god bless this great country. pass h.r. 702 with >> it passed the house and now are to the senate, congress in their home districts or on travel. during the week, they will hold occasional pro forma sessions. they will come back in on tuesday, october 20. you will find the senate live on c-span 2 and we'll have the house live on c-span. house democratic leader nancy pelosi and others held a press briefing on the export import bank after congressman fincher filed a discharge petition.

that vote could take place by the end of the month. here's the half hour news conference. ms. pelosi: i'm honored to stand here with the ranking member of the financial services committee and our minority whip and trying to get the job done for the american people to create jobs for the american people. congresswoman gwen moore of this is a very important day because we have broken through the wall of congress n in the again to get the job done in a bipartisan way. the exim bank is about small businesses and businesses throughout our country benefiting from our opportunity to reach markets overseas.

every country, big trading country, has the aquiffleent of an ex-imbank and for ours not to have it authorized is to tie the hands of american business as we try to expand our exports and increase jobs and paychecks in the united states. it's really quite an important day. i commend the republicans who came forward and signed the discharge petition. i applaud the leadership on their side for enabling this to happen. but i'm particularly done of the work on the democratic side to amass 1767 signatures and more - 176 significance nars. it was the work of the whip's office individually speaking to members and leadership that was provided on this issue, inside

and outside the congress. our ranking member on financial services committee, received kudos galore for the business community, from the round tables and the sessions that she held nd her persistent advocacy for representativend s moore and heck. less than 24 hours, he was able to get the signatures of when we were collecting signatures for the legislation. i thank our distinguished whip, and i yield to mr. hoyer, who has been a champion of make it let's export to

the rest of the world. mr. hoyer: the best whip in the house is nancy pelosi and we worked as a team to get this done to support maxine waters, gwen moore and denny heck who has been an extraordinary champion of export-import bank. as leader pelosi said and the chamber of commerce said, if we didn't do this, it would be unilateral disarmament and would be saying to the rest of the world, you are going to be able to compete and we won't. when we last worked on this in 2012, mr. cantor and i, ms. slaughter, ms. moore, mr. heck, we got over 300 votes. what today showed was when we work together, when people are allowed to express their will, we had 42 republicans sign a discharge petition. it's the fifth discharge petition i'm told -- i haven't looked this up, so check this -- it's the fifth since 1930.

over 85 years. only five of these have been signed and acted on. on october 26, he -- we will be able to consider what i think is a bill to make america more competitive as the leader said, to make it in america and sell it here and around the world. so that's what this day was about and i congratulate all of my colleagues here. this was the success and success of course as many mothers and many if the fathers and we are pleased today. this was a victory for america. not a victory for party, but a victory for america and a victory for american workers. i'm pleased to yield to the ranking member of the financial services committee, who has worked tirelessly on this effort, maxine waters of

california. ms. waters: thank you very much, steny hoyer. thank you for the very kind introduction, but really, i want to thank you for the years of leadership that you have given to the re-authorization of ex-imbank. you have done a fantastic job and i have appreciated working with you as we worked to make sure that we did not lose this important resource in this country. and for leader pelosi, i have never seen anyone so determined, i have never seen such advocacy, she believes when some of us started to believe -- not to believe, rather, she believed we were going to finally get it done. this is a big tribute to her today that we find ourselves in this extraordinary, historic action to discharge this petition, have this petition signed and discharge this

legislation. and so, denny heck and gwen moore, who serve on the financial services committee with me, have worked very hard. they have not only joined with me as we have done round tables, but they have been out in their districts working with all of those businesses and suppliers to the big businesses that depend on ex-imbank in order to create the kind of jobs and provide the kind of supplies to these businesses. ladies and gentlemen, i want you to know, i found myself working with everything from the chamber of commerce, to g.e., to the manufacturers' organization and organized labor, what a combination because we understood the importance of jobs. and all understood the importance of being able to support our export industries. well, we had a lot of things to

overcome, and i have to tell you that the chairman of our committee was determined that this bank would not be re-authorizeded, even though there were many members on that side of the aisle who believed that it should be re-authorized and really wanted to do it. and thank god, mr. fincher and mr. lucas stepped up to the plate and held the hands of members who really wanted to do it, but maybe felt a little intimidated and they came together with us and you see what happened here today. they joined with us in signing this petition to get this bank re-authorized. i'm so proud of the work that we have done, but i'm more proud of the fact that we're going to help keep those jobs in our districts and across this country that have been generated because of the support of the ex-imbank.

we believe here today feeling very good as we go back to our districts and across the country that despite the fact there were many obstacles in our way we have gotten it done and i look forward to the final vote that has been taken on the senate side and all we have to do is just take our vote on this side and off to the president's desk and we are going to have e-authorization of the ex-im bank. s. moore: -- ms. waters: she has played an important role as a member of the financial services committee. ms. moore: thank you so much ranking member waters. i have learned so much under your leadership. i want to thank nancy pelosi and mr. hoyer and mr. heck. and i'm so in awe of this

breakthrough and this historic so t when we have -- with much chaos going on in this building to once again to be able to demonstrate that democracy does work every once in a while and this is one of those occasions. we were fortunate to be joined y 40 -- and i would say 42 courageous members of the ajority who under many threats -- for their own political and career well-being stepped up to break through some of the do-nothing attitude that we have seen here in the capitol, to really sign this discharge petition and to some lid file their beliefs in -- solidify their beliefs in creating jobs. the export-import bank is a job

creating engine and we have seen the impact from it not being re-authorized. we saw g.e. lose 350 high-tech manufacturing jobs directly because the export-import bank was not re-authorized, not to mention the tremendous supply chain that affects folks in my district in milwaukee which still relies heavily on manufacturing for its economy. so it's not just huge corporations. you have heard boeing and g.e. mentioned but companies like maxon in my district that has 30 employees. and this company has done work on the panama canal. and they have subcontractors, a

company down the street from them in milwaukee with four employees that really relies on the export-import bank. the c.e.o. looked at me in the eye and said without the export-import bank, i cannot do what i do for my 30 employees. this is not g.e. or boeing. it is really unacceptable in a global marketplace for the united states to disarm -- and we are so happy today that we were able to make this breakthrough. maybe it's a beginning of a new tone around the capitol. mr. hoyer: amen. [laughter] ms. moore: i can tell you that the person who has really hit the streets and talked to everyone, you know, even people we knew objected to the export-import bank, here's a guy

who would talk to them any way. and mr. denny heck from the state of washington and i'm pleased to call him colleague. mr. heck: it's been a pretty tough couple of weeks around here and yet in the midst i can look you in the eye and say, what you saw on display today was the best of the united states house of representatives. think about it. leadership. the steadfast, strong, unbelievable committed leadership of the people behind me including the leader and ranking member, including the whip. leadership. bipartisanship. this was a republican discharge petition. and by the way, it's the first one to be successfully brought to fruition since 1986. this is a once in a generation thing. this was a bipartisan effort, bravery, my goodness. the bravery of steve fincher and

frank lucas. you read the news reports. they were threatened with their political lives the minute the rumor got it. it took courage, creativity. now i'm not going to bore any of you with the details, but if you really fully understood the brilliance behind the whip's matchinations, you would be blinded by that light. you would be blinded by that light. and lastly, the hard work. i'm a worker. i'm proud to be a buck private in this army and do what i could. the question is why. why is this that thing that brought all those elements forward? why is this a once in a generation thing? those elements, leadership, creativity, bravery, bipartisanship, work, that's all at play. but what's at play is what's behind it.

what's behind it? it's the most important thing we do which is that which we can to help create good-paying jobs for americans. the best social program you can have is the good-paying job and that's what the export-import bank. i'm humbled to be here today. ms. waters: i just wanted to say when i came on the floor today, leader pelosi said you will be number 218 to put it over. don't call me maxine waters, call me 218. [laughter] ms. pelosi: that's the point i wanted to make. congratulations maxine waters on being 218. and that's the point, denny referenced it. this wasn't whipping to convince

members because our members have long been supportive, over 300 and practically -- except for ne, only one, shall we say maybe and everybody unanimously for it. but the wonder of it all was getting people to be here on a friday, to be here on a get-away day and be here on time. we had more members to be here sign. once they got to 218, they cut it off. but the mastery of today from the whip's standpoint was that people were here and they stayed and they signed up and they found out if they had come sooner they would have been within the 218. so congratulations on all of that. now we hope we can go forward. we have another deadline. this is overdue. we have a deadline for the transportation bill

we are going to sing the praises of those who were courageous and meet their needs by passing that legislation and hopefully in a strong bipartisan way. reporter: speaking of deadlines, how are you preparing for some of these deadlines given the great uncertainty about who will be leading house republicans?

ms. pelosi: we have a speaker and as i said yesterday in our press meeting, deadlines are coming up. the senate has acted. the committee of jurisdiction in the house is working on a transportation bill. we hope it is something that will meet the needs of the american people ap make not matters worse, but bold enough and fiscally sound enough to take us forward, creating jobs, promoting commerce and doing everything that the bill is designed to do. full faith and credit of the united states, we want to remove all doubt. just the thought of it before lowered our credit rating. we can't go to that place again and working on a bipartisan way. and on the omnibus, working -- the committees of jurisdiction are working on the pay-fors, working on the actual dollar amount we will have once we know what the pay-fors are and

discussion of no surprises when comes to policy and moves they want to put in the bill, any riders. everybody's working on their own piece of it and hopefully all of this will meet the deadline and republicans will come to terms as to who their recommendation will be for speaker, but that's really up to them. reporter: let me -- mr. hoyer: we have a speaker and the speaker of the house has said he doesn't want to see the government shut down and doesn't want to see the debt limit compromised. i would hope, expect and believe and i think today was an indication of that that this speaker wants to make sure that before he leaves, america is well served by his leadership. reporter: did you ever see something like that in the

democratic caucus? ms. pelosi: no. you haven't and won't. reporter: some republicans are hoping democrats are hoping to elect the next republican speaker? ms. pelosi: they said tell us what you think and how you are going to work with kevin mccarthy. when they act and elect a speaker, we will talk about how to work together for the good of the american people. mr. hoyer: we democrats are unified that we will accept their support of the next speaker, nancy pelosi, it works both ways. reporter: have you had any guarantees on the ex-im? they said they won't take up this bill. hat's the outlook there? believe that we

can feel comfortable that they will take up the legislation. it's the same legislation basically that they passed. i think they will. ms. pelosi: they didn't expect what what was happening today to happen. they didn't expect that we would have a legislative approach that would be successful. mr. hoyer: i talked to senator murray an hour ago on where we are with the work with denny heck and trying to get this done and she is going to be working hard with denny heck and others to convince mccofpble and i want to make it clear what ranking member waters just said, what this rule provides is for the bill that got 64 votes on the floor of the senate so that this is not a bill that has not already passed the house -- i mean the senate.

it has. it is attached to the defense bill. it's not the same. it won't go directly to the president. but it is the bill the senate has already passed by almost 2/3 vote and i would hope under those circumstances senator mcconnell would take it up realizing that 64 of his members, as you saw 218 with the 218 standing right here said this is critical for jobs in america. and i would hope senator mcconnell under those circumstances would facilitate bringing a bill that has already passed this house and almost 2/3 of the floor. reporter: one of the candidates that has been discussed is chairman hensarling to be speaker of the house. he has criticized republicans for putting this discharge petition. i'm wondering if you could speak to chairman hensarling's

leadership and about the nature of a tea partyier working to allow the first discharge to come through. ms. pelosi: thanks for ask about bank. im when they choose their nominee, we will work in a bipartisan way. it's up to them and not up to us. eporter: [inaudible] ms. waters: he has put obstacles in our way. he believed the bank should be killed, but he did not have the support of all of the members of his committee or all of the members of the conference and that's why we are able to do what we are doing today. he does not like it and does not wish it to be re-authorized, but we are past that now because we

have been able to get the discharge petition signed by 218 members of congress. ms. pelosi: and it will have a bigger vote when it comes to the floor on october 26. mr. heck: this is nothing new. ranking member waters beat him on flood insurance, terrorism risk insurance. he is 4-4. ms. moore: democracy is messy, but it's the best system that we know and it works. you know, one person cannot stop the momentum of the majority. and this was a real tribute to democracy. ms. pelosi: thank you. thank you all.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> congress has now started a week-long columbus day break, members are on travel or in their home districts. they will hold occasional pro forma sessions but legislative work resumes in the house on tuesday october 20 while the senate gavels in on monday october 19. you will find the senate live on c-span 2 and the house live here on c-span.

mr. price: we have the role of reconciliation of the threel committees and reporting to the bill without any revisions. after reporting the measure the committee will follow its practice of considering motions to request changes to the reconciliation bill and the rules committee which may make in order amendments to a reconciliation bill. under the agreement i have reached from mr. van hollen, the procedure is as follows. first ranking member and i will each make an opening statement, i ask that members insert their written statement into the record. i will hold the record open until the end of the day for that purpose. after the opening statements, staff will be available for a 10-minute question and answer period, followed up to 40 minutes of debate on the reconciliation bill. we will proceed with a motion to the house, the recommendation

submitted to us pursuant to the reconciliation instructions. after voting to report the restoring americans freedom reconciliation act, we will debate up to two motions, one by the majority and one for the minority. there will be 20 minutes of debate. the proponent will be recognized for eight minutes and opponent, 10. the proponent will have 10 minutes to close. i now recognize the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita. mr. rokita: i ask unanimous consent that consistent with clause 4 of house rule 16 the chairman be authorized to declare a recess at any time. mr. price: without objection. so ordered. we'll now move to opening statements. i want to thank everybody for joining this markup today. we are reporting today a package of legislation submitted by the three house committees pursuant to the reck coalition

instructions -- reconciliation. this is the next step in a progress that will move the legislation both through the house and senate and to the president's desk for his consideration. this year, for the first time in over a decade, congress passed a 10-year balanced budget. pro-growth plan to promote job creation to hold washington accountable and make government more efficient and effective and support key priorities like our national security as well as health and retirement security and get our fiscal house in order. because the house and senate reached an agreement, we have the opportunity to pursue this reconciliation process. the fiscal year 2016 budget ress like states that it ought to address obamacare in an effort to help americans gain access to the health care and coverage they want and not that the government forces them to buy. and that's what we are doing here today.

we are committed to protecting every american from this harmful law and the damage it has done and will do to patients, health care providers, family budgets and job creators. whether it's fewer health care choices, less access to care. higher out of pocket costs, obamacare is an attack on quality health care in our nation. last week, the three house committees charged with reconciliation instructions, the ways and means and education and work force and judiciary committee. held their markups. i thank all for their hard work and hard work of their committee members. this is a team effort and they and their committees have shown real leadership in this endeavor. under the reconciliation process the role of the house budget committee is to combine the recommendations sent over from the three committees into a single bill and consider that single bill here in that committee before reporting it to the full house for its

consideration. a quick review of the policies demonstrates an effort to provide relief by the damage inflicted by obamacare. the ways and means committee as achieved 37.1 billion in savings by repealing the individual and employer mandates and the cadillac tax, the medical device tax as well as the independent payment advisory board. e 15 unelected unaccountable bureaucrats that will effectively deny care to seniors. the energy and commerce committee has achieved savings by repealing an obamacare slush fund called the prevention and public health fund and included an additional policy that will prevent for one year taxpayer dollars from being used to pay for abortions. in is accompanied by more money and resources for hundreds of community health centers across this country so women would have

greater access to health care. the education and work force committee has achieved $7.9 illion in savings by repealing the auto insurance. the total savings is $79.8 billion. it will dismapt will many of the things in the obamacare. our goal here i is to save the country from this disastrous law and start over where patients and families and doctors are making medical decisions, not washington, d.c. while it's the job of the budget committee to combine these recommendations, it is not within our power to make substantive changes to the legislation before us. as you see projected, section 310 of the budget act states each committee shall make

determination and recommendation and submit such recommendations to the budget committee which upon receiving all such recommendations shall report to its house reconciliation legislation carrying out all recommendations without any substantive revision. therefore today's markup may not include any amendments. there will be opportunities for motions after process after the legislation is addressed. i want to thank this committee and the committees who helped draft this legislation and i look forward to today's debate and i yield for his opening statement to the ranking member, mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen: it is absolutely mind boggling that we are here in this day in this place with this piece of legislation in front of us. we know we have a crisis of leadership within the republican caucus and that may be just a matter of political intrigue to some, but the reality it's

causing harm to the country as we speak. we have a huge number of pressing issues facing our country right now. we have the threat of another government shutdown in mid-december. we've got our debt payments and debt ceiling that needs to be addressed, so the united states makes good on the full faith and credit of the united states so we don't put our economy at great risk. we have a transportation authorization bill that expires within weeks and yet here we are my for the 62nd time, by count, trying to dismantle the forecast affordable care act and attack women's health programs including planned parenthood. so rather than tackling those issues, here we are trying to do the bidding of a faction of this house that just can't come to

terms with the fact that the affordable care act is the law of the land and upheld twice by the supreme court. and it is pretty outrageous that the focus is on dismantling the affordable care act. i draw my colleague's attention to the congressional budget office's analysis of this budget reconciliation bill. these are the nonpartisan experts, the new head of the c.b.o. is there and apointed by this chairman and the chairman on the other side of the capitol and here's what they report this bill would do. it would reduce the number of nonelderly people by 14 million to 15 million in most years, about 20% of those are estimated to be children. i would like to put up a chart. as you can see the affordable care act has had a dramatic impact in reducing the number of

uninsured in this country. it is doing its intended job of providing affordable health care to 16 million people, including children. and yet the priority of our republican colleagues in this house at a time of disfunction and pressing issues, is to pass a piece of legislation that is going to take that health insurance away from 16 million. it's astounding and at the same time we see an attack on women's health programs. this house has had three committees investigating pln planned parenthood. this was the conclusion announced by mr. chaffetz on national television. mr. van hollen: next chart. in fact, at the hearing where

the committee brought the head of planned parenthood in front of them for 4 1/2 hours, it wasn't a question of planned parenthood's wrongdoing, the chart that was put up to make a point by the republican chairman was given the pants on fire rating, meaning the most untruthful statement that you an make by the nonpartisan politicfact. ere we are with a piece of legislation designed to deprive american citizens of affordable health care and a witch hunt against an organization that provides cervical health screenings. and that seems to be the priority. now, mr. chairman, you said this would actually reduce the deficit. i refer my colleagues to the c.b.o. report and just draw your

attention right here to page eight. and what it says is that if you actually look at the long-term beyond our artificial 10-year windows, this legislation actually increases the deficit. all this talk about balanced budgets is just nonsense. this actually increases our deficit over the period of time outside the 10-year window and interestingly, i think the chairman mentioned within the 10-year window it has $79 billion of cuts, but of course those go away. that is an artificial marker. if i remember the republican budget had almost $4 trillion in cuts in mandatory spending. this is your one shot in reconciliation and you are telling the world that you didn't mean it because you are coming up with a piece of

legislation that in the long run increases the deficit. doesn't come close of balancing the budget. that was all smoking mirrors and doing it at the expense of 16 million americans who now have affordable health care and launching an attack on women's health programs, that the chairman of your own investigative committee has said hasn't violated any laws and put forward an argument that got him the most untruthful rating. i'm going to offer later a proposal to prevent the government shutdown. i hope we can agree on that. we don't agree on the idea of taking away health care for millions of americans. mr. price: given the time constraints i ask unanimous consent that members have until the end of the day to submit written statements. without objection, so ordered.

we will now have questions and and. the staff is available to answer any technical questions regarding the recommendations, not to debate the policy implications of the recommendations. we have 10 minutes. i ask if any members have any questions. the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. mr. mcdermott: did you leave in place the provision in the affordable care act that requires insurance companies to policies to ce anybody no matter what their health care status is? >> thank you for your question. the legislation reflects the submissions of the three instructed companies per the f.y. 2016 concurrent budget resolution and the language before you -- does not touch the

provision you are referring to. mr. mcdermott: you believe? >> it does not. mr. mcdermott: it would require an insurance company to issue a policy and find out they are sick, they would be required to issue it at that point? >> it believes in place those provisions. it does leave in place those provisions. mr. van hollen: let me ask some questions that are clearly within the subject matter. have you had a chance to review the analysis of this reconciliation legislation? >> yes. we have had a chance to review. mr. van hollen: is it the case that they concluded that this legislation will increase the federal deficit beyond the 10-year window.

>> i believe the submission you e referring to from c.b.o. a.m.izes the ways and means language, according to the budget control act, the house budget committee determined whether they are in compliance and relies on c.b.o.'s estimates. overall, ways and means submission does reduce the deficit by $37.1 billion. mr. van hollen: i understand that. but they also focused on what we all should care about not the deficit within an artificial window but that's the long-term impact. i'm just asking the question. this is the budget committee. mr. price: the gentleman has the c.b.o. report. mr. van hollen: but i don't think there have been a lot of other things going on in the house recently. i do think it's important before we vote on this that we get the

panelists from the budget committee staff to tell us what is in the congressional budget office report. >> i can address your question. according to c.b.o., it says that the legislation would not increase the net direct spending in either the first two consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2026. however the agencies of c.b.o. and j.c.t. are not able to determine whether enacting the legislation would increase net direct spending. the agency's estimate that it would increase on budget deficits by $5 billion in each of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2026. mr. van hollen: i didn't see that fine print but makes the point that despite comments about trying to balance the

budget that this makes the budget deficit worse. i think it's important for people to understand that that's what they are doing here in the budget committee. the budget that passed the house , do you recall how many trillions of dollars in mandatory spending cuts it had? mr. price: i'm not sure it is a technical question about this reconciliation bill. if you want to carry on that conversation during the debates, that's appropriate. mr. van hollen: i'm referencing your comments about your balanced budget and i think it's important to point out your balanced budget required close to $4 trillion and this has $79 billion and that's in the 10-year window. t actually increases the

deficit. so we can move on from there. let's understand the factual impact of this legislation as well. in terms of the impact on some of the children's access to affordable care. do you have any information that indicates how many kids who today have affordable health care coverage, will no longer have that if this legislation passes? >> c.b.o. has not provided us with the information on the aggregate totals with regard to the legislation submitted by the committees. mr. van hollen: you are referring to the fact that -- you have the ways and means analysis but not the analysis from the other committees? >> referring to the pack acknowledge as a whole, not further analysis that you are asking about. mr. van hollen: do you know the impact from committees other than ways and means would have

any impact on their access to affordable health care? >> we're not prepared to answer those questions, impacts. mr. van hollen: -- >> we refer you back to the c.b.o. estimates regarding the recommendations that the three committees submitted to the budget committee. mr. van hollen: during this technical time period, could you tell us what c.b.o. concluded with respect to the impact of the ways and means committee kids' of this bill on access to affordable health care? it's a factual question. mr. price: it's not a technical question about the piece of legislation. mr. van hollen: it is. i'm trying to figure out what

the impact of the legislation is. it's a factual question. but we're asking now the analysts as to what the factual impact will be. we typically have at least half an hour to ask questions about the bill. we thought in the interest of time, we wouldn't do that. but i'm not sure -- i'm asking about a congressional budget office finding with respect to the impact of this legislation. mr. price: do either of you have any further information? >> we refer you to the c.b.o. estimate on the ways and means' committee submission. it does, in fact, include information about the effect of the repeal of the individual mandates but does not provide any specific numbers as to the number of individuals who would be losing coverage. mr. price: pull your microphone

closer. >> i would refer you to the c.b.o. estimate regarding repeal of the individual mandate. it does not provide any specific numbers as far as i can see at the moment and would ask you to look further at that submission from c.b.o. mr. van hollen: i'll wrap this up unless some of my colleagues have any questions. i must be looking at a different report because it does have numbers and would reduce the number of nonelderly people by $14 million and 15 million in most years, about 20% of those 14 million to 15 million being children. those look like real numbers to me, mr. chairman. unless any of my colleagues have more questions, we can proceed to the next -- mr. price: thank you very much. thank you, staff, for your participation here today.

we'll begin the -- this concludes that question and answer period. pursuant to my agreement with mr. van hollen, general debate consist of 40 minutes. they will have 20 minutes for debate each side. without objection. so ordered. the majority side will take 20 minutes and the minority side will have 20 minutes to discuss the bill. i want to make a couple of points before i yield to some of my colleagues. this piece of legislation is not in a -- is in a vacuum. you can't do policy changes in a reconciliation bill. so to stipulate that this number of folks or that number of folks, that's looking at this legislation not in the context of appropriate reform. in fact, what we believe ought to occur is to have real reform,

patient-centered reform where patients, families and doctors are making these decisions and not washington, d.c. it's important to point out that the american people continue to this law. and they do so because it violates the principles of health care. violates the principles of health care. not that republicans or democrats hold. and those principles are we want -- the american people wants a system that is accessible, affordable and highest quality that provides a system that is responsive to patients and incentivizes and highest health care quality in the world and provides patient choices. patients ought to be the ones be selected when they are treated and how. instead this law puts government in charge of those things. this is why we are bringing this forward. we believe so strongly that the

american people ought to be positively and aggressively represented by this congress to respond to their concerns about this piece of legislation. the difference this time than in other times is that through the reconciliation process we have an opportunity to have the senate get to the legislation without the filibustering that occurs from our democrats and get the legislation to the president's desk. very positive activity that's going on here today and i encourage our members to continue to move this forward. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita. mr. rokita: six years ago, congress passed the affordable care act otherwise known as obamacare. under the guise of increasing access to care. obamacare is bad for families, bad for small businesses and bad for our economy.

our debt continues to climb and our economy struggles. we need jobs and opportunity for all americans while not placing burdens on future generations. this imposes taxes on individuals and combisses. obamacare will cost future generations $6.2 trillion over the next 75 years. obamacare will cost future generations, $6.2 trillion over the next 75 years. we have a moral obligation not to pass this on to our children and grand children. it has negatively impacted our economy and imposes mandates thataccording to the congressio budget office, obamacare will cost 2.5 million employees to drop out of the labor market. obamacare will actually cost 2.5

million employees to drop out of the labor market and created hundreds of rules forcing businesses to spend millions of man hours to comply. we should look at how it can free up businesses and promote growth and innovation. this will reduce our deficit over the next 10 years and set us on a path that favors cutting costs and higher taxes and will create jobs. republicans in this budget are supporting greater economic freedom and opportunity in supporting families and job creators. i yield back. mr. price: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: there is bipartisan agreement that the medical device tax must go. house of representatives voted to repeal it back in the 114th congress, 113th congress and 112th congress. excise taxes are usually reserved on alcohol and tobacco.

they are taxing devices. additionally there is a tax on sales, not on profits. the small firms and innovators are hit disproportionately. in search for taxes, supporters of the a.c.a. came up with a medical device tax that holds back growth and innovation in health care. the tax resulted in employment reductions at lost jobs and 14,000 industry jobs and last year with an additional 145 jobs in 2014. the industry will forgo hiring employees, considering jobs lost and jobs not created, the tax results in 39,000 fewer jobs. the medical device tax puts effort to innovate the next generation technology at risk and i encourage members to support its repeal. mr. price: yield one minute to the gentleman from florida from

mr. diaz-balart. mr. diaz-balart: independent payment advisory board was created and this board gives 15 unelected superbureaucrats to slash access to care and forces providers to stop seeing medicare patients. the house passed legislation this year with bipartisan support repealing this board by a rather large margin. you see both agree that allowing a panel of bureaucrats in washington to make these critical health care decisions instead of patients and families to make those decisions is not the way way to keep our promises. for those reasons and many thers, this reconciliation package will repeel that. mr. cole: i wanto