an early. there are 9:00 and eastern time. they just open the doors. they are on their way in. they will be working on issues like north korea as well as looking at some debt limit technical issues. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. merciful god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as members prepare to return to their home districts, endow them with ears to hear, voices of their constituents, those who voted for them and those who did not. it is the strength of our representative democracy that all have a voice in the governing of the nation. our nation will soon be remembering presidents washington and lincoln, giants of america's history, one presided over a nation united

in its inception behind their president, the other over a nation divided soon after his election. may each of their examples be inspiration to all americans that faithfulness to the laws of our land and the hope of our founders is the responsibility of us all to bring to our political discourse. bless us this day and every day . may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. mr. schiff: please join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor donald "buddy" ray a great arkansan and american, dear friend who passed away in january. a native of dezark, he earned a degree in animal husbandry from the university of arkansas. he spent time in the army, later in the army guard, before joining a small poultry company in 1961 called tyson feed and hatchery. today known as tyson foods. for over 50 years buddy was instrumental in everything the company did. as president and c.o.o. he helped build tyson foods into one of the world's leading food companies and major contributor to our state's economy. mr. womack: in addition to his

career, buddy was also dedicated to the northwest kansas community, especially springdale, he served on countlets boards, the university of arkansas, college of the ozarks to name a few. he was also a man of faith, dedicated to the robinson avenue church of christ in springdale. buddy will be missed by his many family members, countless friends, the community, and the tyson foods family, but we find comfort in remembering buddy's famous words -- look behind with no regrets, look forward with no fear. and knowing his determination to live that message resulted in a life that made a difference. rest in peace, buddy ray, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. ms. kelly: i rise today to recognize louise garrett, who after three years of serving the windy city as my chief of

staff is leaving for the sunny skies of l.a. b.g., as he's known, is exactly the type of servant leader this country deserves. he began his career in 2006 as the policy advisor to congressman bill jefferson of louisiana. later he served as legislative director to congresswoman marcia fudge of ohio and policy director of the congressional black dauks. as a brief stint as policy director to vice president biden's election campaign, i was lucky to have him gamble on me and serve as my chief of staff. e's worked tirelessly to the residents of the second congressional district. are you truly one of your kind. from your very unique fashion to your quick smile, your cool demeanor and ability to make everyone you meet feel like they are your best friend. it was my honor and privilege to call you my chief. on behalf of the families of the second congressional district and this congress,

thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. it >> mr. speaker, today i rise to recognize retired united states air force colonel, carlyle "smitty" harris of tupelo, mississippi. on this day in 1973 after nearly eight years of being held as a prisoner of war in vietnam, he was released to be reunited with his wife, his daughters, and his son who was born one month after he was captured. colonel harris became a p.o.w. on april 4, 1965 when his f-105 thunder chief was shot down by an enemy fire while he was on a mission to attack a bridge known as the dragon's jaw, an important target in north vietnam. mr. kelly: he was transported to the well-known hanoi hilton. colonel harris taught his fellow prisoners a vital way of

communicating with each other through a method called the tap code this. gave the men the ability to communicate without speaking, establishing a chain of command, and boosting morale. while he experienced cruelty, tore tureks and isolation, he was able to find solace in his faith in god, love of his country, and hope to see his family again. thank you, colonel harris, for your service and i would like to join you in celebrating this happy anniversary of your homecoming. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i rise today to discuss the environmental tragedy affecting residents in porta ranch. a few miles from my district and until yesterday methane gas continued to leak into the air from one of the wells spewing 110,000 pounds of methane per hour. this leak began last october. the full health and environmental impacts of this unmitigated disaster may not be

known for many years and already it has displaced thousands of families and caused innumerable illnesses and property losses. today i'm calling on the u.s. department of energy to lead a comprehensive investigation into what caused this leak and its inadequate response and provide recommendations for mitigating the damage and preventing future incidents. this tragedy must never be repeated. between porta ranch and flint, michigan, it is clear that both the government and the private sector are far from placing the priority we need on our family's health and their safety. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, earlier this week i was honored to host chrisa marine in washington.

krisa has competed in the special olympics as an athlete for 15 years. recently more than 300 athletes participated in the winter games in pennsylvania with 135 coaches and more than 1,000 volunteers. pennsylvania's special olympics includes many athletes from pennsylvania's fifth congressional district, including athlete denise. denise is highly accomplished, having earned 110 medals, including many gold honors. she gives back to her community as a peer advocate and potter county human services advisory board member. her story is like so many who participate in the special olympics who rise above challenges and excel in sports from skiing to figure skating to snowshoing. on march 5 and 6 the skills of our special olympians will be on display at the state four hockey games in my home district. i look forward to seeing them compete in person. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. >> i rise today to highlight n.f.c. champion north carolina panthers. i have the privilege of representing north carolina's 12th district in congress, home to the beloved panthers. ms. adams: week after week the panthers gave their time and their all and breezed through the season nearly undefeated. and with each game came new rounds of support as the carolina fan base swarmed to unchartered numbers. i'm sure the carolina panthers put in long and hard hours of practice which led them to super bowl 50. the panthers have had an amazing season. i know i speak for all north carolina fans when i say the panthers did an amazing job, making north carolina proud to call them their home team. what a phenomenal trick to the super bowl, to carolina's own nfl m.v.p. cam new tornings

thanks for leading the charge and inspiring so many fans young and old. based off the season's performance, i know next year the panthers will keep pounding all the way to super bowl li and bring home the lombardi trophy. keep pounding. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize the 75th anniversary of the service organizations known to all of us as the u.s.o. for 75 years u.s.o. has supported and strengthened the life of our service members and their families at home and throughout the more than 160 countries in the world. i am deeply grateful for those who serve our nation as i have had loved ones proudly wearing our nation's uniform and still do. u.s.o. goes above and beyond to adapt its programs to our service members' needs. they boost morale by helping

them connect with their families and their home while overseas, as well as assisting with the transition back to civilian life and providing support and care for the wounded and for the families of the fallen. that is why, mr. speaker, i'm so pleased to pay tribute to the outstanding commitment of the u.s.o. and their excellent work over the last 75 years. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today i stand to bring attention to the tallahassee democrats' 25 women you need to in a moment ms. graham: for 10 years the democrat has named 25 women who deserve recognition from our community. these women have not only excelled in their professional careers, but they also donate their time and talents toward volunteering and giving back to

our community. an for the second year in a row, the paper is also naming five young women to watch. bliss wilson, cassidy craig, jordan baron, micah joiner, and zenina d. johnson. these young women are only in high school but also have impressive resumes. and i know they are going to go on to do great things. mr. speaker, i want to thank the "democrat" for their service to our community in recognizes these people and i applaud this year's 25 women and five young women on all their accomplishments. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, president obama has proposed a new $10 per barrel tax on oil. that represents 24 cents in new taxes on every gallon of gas.

that's right, 25 cents per gallon of new costs for families. families are finally feeling the benefit of lower cost fuel. this president propose as plan to take those savings immediately from those families. worse, this new tax will actually go to fund pie-in-the-sky boondoggles like in california, the high speed rail project, and many other pet projects of the president. that pet project in california has tripled in price since its inception. the american people paid a record amount of taxes last year to the treasury. over $3.2 trillion or nearly $22,000 per working american. yet the government still wants to take more and spend more. i say no. no more taxes on american family. no more wasted billion dollars on president's and governor brown's pet projects. i urge my colleagues to join me and put this country instead on a balanced budget track. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the the

gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. kuster: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to remember a wonderful man, former mayor of concord, new hampshire, martin gross. marty was a pillar of the granite state community and to me he was a beloved mentor, teacher, and friend. as mayor of concord, he gave so much to the city i grew number in. we see the effects of his legacy every day, walking down the streets of the historic city he helped restore and bring to life. as a prominent lawyer, he was known among his colleagues for being a mentor to young lawyers who looked up to him and stromb to follow in his footsteps as they learn to love the law. as an activist, he inspired generations of granite staters to give back to their community, whether through community service, volunteering, or running for office. and as a stratgist for generations of new hampshire

politicians, he helped make the a am of public service reality. let's all join together to remember martin, a man whose friendship, loyalty, kind heartedness, and dedication to his town, state, and community will never be forgotten. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. pursuant to clause 86 rule 20rk the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. any record vote on postponed questions will be taken later. .

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. royce: mr. speaker, i move the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 757. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 757, an act to improve the enforcement of sanctions against the government of north korea and for other purposes, senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. royce, and the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to evise and extend their remarks

and to include extraneous material on this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. royce: well, thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, for three years the foreign affairs committee that i chair has worked with great determination o build support for this north korea sanctions legislation. i want to thank my democratic colleagues, and i especially want to thank our ranking member, mr. eliot engel of new ork, for his support on this legislation. i want to thank senator corker and garner for their support in the senate and for the strong additions, particularly on human rights and on cyberattacks by the brutal and hostile north korean regime. today, congress, democrats and republicans, house and senate, unite to put this north korea

sanctions legislation on the president's desk. last month this bill passed the house with 418 votes, and this 96-0. passed the senate mr. speaker, these overwhelming votes reflect bipartisan frustration with our north korea policy, a policy of strategic patience that isn't working. today, congress unites to say it's time for a new approach. mr. speaker, last month north korea conducted its fourth known nuclear test, and last weekend it concluded a long range missile test. and on tuesday, our director of tional intelligence, james clapper, testified that north korea has restarted a plutonium reactor and expanded production and expanded that production of

weapons grade nuclear fuel. the threat to the united states and our allies is real. the tyrannical regime of kim jong un has developed increasingly destructive weapons. its miniaturized nuclear warheads that fits on the most relyable missiles. we cannot stand by any longer. the legislation we consider today, this h.r. 757, is the most comprehensive north korea sanctions legislation to come before this body. my bill uses targeted financial and economic pressure to isolated kim jong un and his top officials from the assets they maintain in foreign banks and from the hard currency that sustains their rule. these assets are gained in part from illicit activities on the part of north korea, like counterfeiting u.s. currency

and selling weapons around the world. and they are used to advance the north korean nuclear program. luxurious ay for the lifestyles of the ruling elites and the continued oppression of the north korean people by their police state. in 2005, the treasury department black listed a small bank in macau called banco delta asia, which not only froze north korea's money in the bank but also scared away other financial institutions from dealing with the government in north korea for fear they, too, would be black-listed. unfortunately, this effective policy was shelfed for ill-fated negotiations. but this can get us back to a winning strategy. equally important to the strong sanctions in this bill are its critical human rights

provisions. north korea operates a brutal system of gulags that hold as many as 120,000 men, women and children. and if a north korean is suspected of any kind of dissented opinion, even telling a joke about the regime, his entire family, for three generations, is punished. north korea is a human rights house of horrors. two years ago, the u.n. commission of inquiry released the most comprehensive report on north korea to date, and their finding was that the kim jong un regime and the whole family regime has for decades pursued policies involving crimes -- and this is the words of the united nations' report -- crimes that shock the

conscience of humanity. and this amended version requires the administration to develop a strategy to promote north korean human rights, including a list of countries that use north korean slave labor. the implementation of this bill subsidy sever a key for their weapons of mass destruction program for only when the north korean leadership realizes that its criminal activities are untenable, the prospects of peace and prosperity in northeast asia improves. i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this measure, and yumeds. -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: i'm proud to be the

lead democratic co-sponsor and i'm glad we're almost to the finish line. just over a month ago we passed this bill and sent it to the senate. the senate acted quickly to make minor adjustments, and today we'll pass this bipartisan legislation and send it to the president's desk. this process is a great example of what we can accomplish when we work in a bipartisan way to advance american security. and as i said many times before, i'm proud of the members on both sides of the aisle on the foreign affairs committee because we have worked in a bipartisan manner. i would caution all members about leveling political charges when it comes to north korea. i'm reminded of the old adage that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. we all know north korea is a problem, but let's not kid ourselves. this problem has grown under many administrations, both parties, and congresses of both

parties, so when we talk about how we got here, we need to really focus in a bipartisan manner. that's what we're trying to do, because the regime is dangerous. nuclear program threatens regional stability and global security. it worries me to think what north korea's leaders plan to do with their nuclear arsenal or who they might be willing to sell nuclear material to. and while it's bad enough on its own, north korea's nuclear program is just a top item on a long list of dangerous and illegal activity by that regime. from cyberattacks to money laundering and counterfeiting, from human rights abuses, as chairman royce has pointed out, to the regular attacks on south korea, the kim regime runs roff shod over the norms -- roughshod over the norms. and the near universal condemnation of a global

community or the deepening isolation of north korea from the rest of the world, so we're left to tighten the screws even further. that's what we're trying to do today. we need to work with south korea and japan on a tough coordinated response. we need to take every opportunity to collaborate on his issue with the chinese who wheel considerable influence over north korea and we need to dial up our own sanctions and tighten sanctions enforcement and that's what this bill does. north korea is always looking for ways to get around our sanctions. the sanctions in this bill would focus especially on north korean elites who conduct shady transactions with shell corporations and then cover up the money trail. in pyongyang, the capital, these cronies of the kim regime pocket the cash while the rest of the north korean people suffer. i've been to north korea twice, and it's just sickening that the regime and its friends

profit from these crimes while the rest of the country is literally starving. on that point, this bill includes important exceptions for the humanitarian aid that benefits the north korean people. our anger is not with the people of north korea. in fact, the united states does a great deal to provide aid to this oppressed population, but they deserve better from their leaders. that's why we should send this bill to the president and that's why we should continue to make north korea a top foreign policy priority. the kim family has ruled north korea for many, many, many kim jong un seems to be the worst of a lot. the oppressions, the assassinations, the political strangle hold that he keeps the -- stranglehold that he keeps the whole country in and the fact that many people get caught, as chairman royce point

thed out, in the gulag -- pointed out, in the gulag, families are oppressed. they are horrors. that's why we should send this bill to the president and why we should continue to make north korea a top foreign policy priority. so i'm proud to support this bill. i'm proud to be the lead democrat on the bill, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: mr. speaker, before recognizing our next speaker, i also want to note that this bill effectively re-authorizes and extends the north korean human rights act of 2004, which i worked to support for more than a dozen years. and that groundbreaking law, which was re-authorized in 2008 and again in 2012 by our chairman emeritus ileana ros-lehtinen, emphasized that human rights, the free flow of information and the protection of those who have escaped are

not only important to the people of north korea, they also are critical to changing north korea's strategic calculus and trying to force that rogue regime to address the needs of its own people instead of threatening its neighbors. mr. speaker, i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on africa, global health, global human rights and international organizations. mr. smith: i thank my good friend from yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. smith: the north korea dictatorship is a threat that requires significantly enhanced vigilance and response. the north korea sanctions enforcement act of 2016, authored by chairman ed royce, will ensure that the obama administration takes meaningful action to mitigate north korea's cruelty, human rights abuse and military danger. the u.s. can no longer sit on the sidelines while kim jong un proliferates nuclear and missile technology and abuses

and starves the north korean people. north korea's listed by the state department as a tier three country with respect to human trafficking. designated as one of eight countries of particular concern who are engaging in egregious violations of religious freedom. mr. chairman, i have chaired four hearings on human rights abuses in north korea. it is as chairman royce noted a house of horrors. the u.n. commission on north korea recommended the u.n. impose targeted sanctions on north korean leaders responsible for these crimes against humanity. however, china blocks effective u.n. actions. this in part is why the congress and the administration must act now. north korean human rights abusers must be identified and listed so that sanctions can be appropriately applied. north korea's long range and launch of long range rocket

last week re-energied concern over the country's intercontinental ballistic missile program. it was strongly condemned by the u.n. security council which avoyed to apply further sanctions. hopefully the security council investigation under way will include partner nations who purchase north korean missile technology. iran, to whom administration has just released billions of dollars, is one of north korea's nuclear partners. we should be very concerned about that. at some point the iranians will require fiffle material beyond what they are allowed to produce or they may purchase actual warheads from north korea. or perhaps iran will get enriched uranium, their stash, back from russia. at a foreign affairs committee hearing yesterday, mr. speaker, chairman royce has had well over 35 oversight hearings on iran, president obama's coordinator for implementation of the iran nuclear deal where

i asked him, where iran's stockpile of enriched ue ran yum sent? is it in russia? what city? do we or the iaea have on site access to where it's stored for verification purposes? remember reagan, trust and verify? on-site verification? shockingly the ambassador said he didn't in where the enriched uranium is. he did say it was on a russian ship somewhere to a port or to a final destination we don't have a clue. yesterday's revelation was yet another flaw in the egregiously flawed iran nuclear deal, and we know that there is a connection between north korea and iran. our vigilance must be stepped up. this bill is a major step. the fact that it's so bipartisan and eliot engel, again working side by side with the chairman to make sure a good bill is produced. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves.

gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson, a member of the foreign affairs committee and chairman of the armed services he subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. wilson: thank you, chairman ed royce, four your leadership on freemed and liberty. i strongly support the north korean sanctions enforcement act of 2016. we have seen evidence that the monarchy in north korea led by an unstable dictator has become increasingly hostile, threatening its neighbors being american allies. sadly just last week it successfully tested a long range rocket which is capable of reaching california. the recent missile test come after years of ignoring nonproliferation agreements and conducting nuclear test without facing any meaningful consequences. as america continues to fight the global war on terrorism, we should not allow an

unpredictable rogue leader to continue unchecked. we must change course to a strategy of peace through strength to protect american families. in 2003, i was one of the few members of congress to visit pyongyang north korea along with ranking member elon engel and chairman jeff miller. i saw farne the struggle and oppression of its citizens which have endured under communist totalitarian rule. the -- compared to the dynamic capital of south korea, north korea is the ultimate example of another socialist failure. the north korean sanctions enforcement act strengthens our nation's ability to sanction the agents, government, and financial institutions that enable north korea's dangerous activities. i am grateful to chairman ed royce for introducing the north korea sanctions enforcement act unanimously supported in the u.s. senate with bipartisan support. which puts pressure on the regime by restricting them from selling weapons of mass

destruction. importing and exporting conventional weapons, and engaging in further cyberattacks. it is also directing the state department hold the administration accountable by creating a strategy to improve enforcement of existing sanctions. this legislation is an important first step to achieving peace through strength in the region. i look forward with my colleagues on the foreign affairs committee and armed services committee to promote positive change and stability in northeast asia for all koreans to have a bright future. i yield the bag of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, judge ted poe, chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism nonproliferation and trade. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. poe: i thank the chairman. i want to also reiterate the bipartisanship on which this legislation has been brought to the floor, the work of the chairman, and the ranking member who are experts in

foreign affairs and especially countries like north korea. when i had a chance last year to visit with the pacific command, and i talked to the four-star admiral in pacific command, and i asked him this question. of the five entities that are threats to the united states, russia, china, iran, isis, and north korea, which of those concerns you the most? and he quickly said, north korea. because they are an unstable regime. and this legislation will help, hopefully, to have that unstable dictator that murders his own people, that is trigger happy, that is developing all types of weapons and puts them on the open market to sell them to other nations that want to cause mischief in the world. hopefully stop this conduct of

north korea. yes, north korea has nuclear weapons. they are developing missiles to deliver those nuclear weapons. about a year or year and a half ago the dictator of north korea said he wanted that first intercontinental ballistic missile to go to austin, texas. i take that a little personal, mr. speaker. i don't know why he picked austin. anyway, and their delivery capability, they are working on that. and they have no intention of stopping. so, the international community must tell the dictator of north korea you can't do this. you can't be a menace to not only your own people in south korea and the entire region but the world. so, this piece of legislation is an important step in stopping the mischief making, trigger happy dictator of north korea. i yield back the balance of my tifmente that's just the way it

is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. gentleman from new york. mr. engel: we have no other speakers, so i guess it's time to close. is that what we are going to do? ok. let me in closing yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: let me first start by joe wilson who was on the trip with me as he mentioned to north korea. we drove in from the airport on a bus and joe was sitting at the front of it and we saw all these hostile billboards. and we couldn't of course read it, it was in korean, but we could look at the pictures. one of the pictures had an american soldier on the ground with a north korean soldier with a bacon net -- bayonet right through the american soldier's head. the reason why we knew it was an american soldier because it

said u.s.a. on the soldier's uniform. and wilson sat in the front and very carefully maneuvered his camera and snapped a picture. we have that picture. and that was something that if the north koreans had known we were doing they probably would he have confiscated the camera. they didn't. i just wanted to mention that because there were, i believe, six of us on that trip. and it was a bipartisan trip. it was an eye opener. i went back a few years later. i remember the gentleman from south carolina sitting there and very skillfully maneuvering that camera. that's a good picture. we should probably blow up and let our colleagues see it so they understand the regime that we are dealing with. this was not dim jungune -- kim jungune this was his father. so it seems to be getting

progressively worse. the father was known as the dear leader. the grandfather, who was the person who was most responsible for the revolution, was also heralded. wherever we went in north korea there were pictures of the two of them on the walls, whether it was in schools, whether it was in hotel. it's a very eerie feeling. it brings you back to those of us when we were kids read this book "1984." which was in the future now is in the past. those people who read that book to me that sort of describes the korean regime. it's a scary thing. the work we are doing here today is so important. it's so important to send a message. it's so important to let the world know that we haven't forgotten this. that this remains a priority. the u.s. congress and bipartisan priority in the u.s.

congress. so the kim regime must understand if it continues to defight global consensus and ignore its obligations under international law, there will be consequences. the elites in north korea must be shown if they try to skirt sanctions, we'll find new ways to go after them. anyone who wants to do business with north korea must be warned we will crack down on those who help sustain this brutal regime. the only way forward for north korea is for its leaders to give us their illegal and dangerous pursuits and come back to the negotiating table. so i'm proud congress is sending this bill to the president. and i hope we will ramp up engagement with our partners and allies and make it clear that north korea's present course can only lead to deeper isolation for the country's leaders and sadly continued suffering for the country's people. when we went to north korea i think the most stark difference that i have seen in all the

years i have been in congress was when we went to north korea to the capital, pyongyang and then travel to the capital of south korea, seoul, where congressman wilson's wife and other spouses were waiting there. seoul is a city that is vibrant much like new york or chicago or any of the big cities in our country. where the people are well dressed, well-fed, and shops are opened. it looks like a real western-style city. of course it's in asia, but it reminds one of tokyo or cities like that. you go to north korea and it's just like going back into 1950's, east germany. that's just the feeling that you get. you see hotels and buildings that were constructed but were constructed poorly and couldn't be occupied.

when we came back about 18 months later, it was still just the way it was 18 months before. you hardly see a car. traffic lights don't work. it's just bizarre. i think that's the word. and the poor north korean people are the ones who are really suffering. but the contrast between pyongyang the capital of north korea and seoul, the capital of south korea, was just unbelievable. it was like night and day. it's on the same peninsula. it's the same people, korean people, yet it's like night and day. and the picture that i think they say pictures are worth a thousand words, there is a picture of the korean peninsula at night and if you take a look, it was taken by satellite, and if you take a look, you see the south korea is vibrant, there are all kinds of lights, it's lit up. and north korean is absolutely black. absolutely dark. no lights. no energy. no power.

what a contrast. two koreas, same people. one is a bastion of democracy in new york and the chairman and i have visited south korea, and one a brutal, brutal dictatorship. i hope that this bill overwhelmingly passes. i hope that we have strong support from both sides of the aisle, and we want to let the people of north korea know that we are with them not with the brutal regime and that's why we are doing this legislation today. so i thank chairman royce for it. i urge everyone to vote yes. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i would like to again thank ranking member elliott engel for his -- eliot engel for his work on this issue. he's my co-author on this bill, and i would like to concur in

his thoughts about the shocking nature of this totalitarian regime, not just in terms of the way it has treated its people but also its hostility towards south korea and to the united states and to the west. and to just share the thought, as he's expressed, this level of struggle that the people themselves in north korea live in under this totalitarian state. when i was in north korea, i had an opportunity to see something that struck me just malnutrition. and they say that n.g.o. community tells us close to 50% of those children are malnourished. what i saw in terms of the malnourishment -- and they say -- the n.g.o. community says malnourished to the point it affects their ability to learn.

the malnourishment can be seen. the average height of the person in north korea is four inches shorter than in south korea. and that is a really stark thing to see as you're in north korea. but the other observation that mr. engel made was the overt hostility shown to the united states and, of course, to south korea and to the rest of the world. corvette. seeing the a south korean ship in which 46 south koreans lost their lives, over 50 were injured. they -- it was split in half by a torpedo from a north korean submarine and they actually lifted the two halves out of the water. and inspecting that and looking at the letters that some of the -- the last letters that some

of those young south korean sailors had sent home before they perished, it's just a reminder, it is a reminder of how brutal that regime can be n its own people but also on hose who -- against who it has ill-intent. so the south koreans have suffered from this. now to see them move forward and expand this nuclear weapons program. each new launch brings them closer. they say they can hit the west coast of the united states. they're claiming they will be able to hit the entire u.s. with their icbm program. these placards that you see and these posters actually show their missiles coming down on the united states. and so at this point, i think it is critical and our colleagues mountain senate feel the same way and i want to

thank our senate colleagues for building upon the house bill which eliot engel and i have authored, and i also appreciate the cooperation of the bipartisan house leadership to ensure this bill's quick scheduling. it's just back from the senate. in the wake of north korea's fourth nuclear test and its recent missile launch, many of our allies also are trying to tighten the screws now on that regime in order to slow its capability to deliver this type of weapon. only days ago, south korea shuttered the industrial complex because as they observed it was giving the north korean regime the hard currency it needed in order to move forward its weapons programs. and this will end a very important revenue for the north korean regime. japan has issued a new set of

sanctions as well, and china and russia should take notice and follow this example. it is time for the united states to stand with our partners in northeast asia as we press china and russia to follow suit and this bill sends the message to that regime in north korea that they must reform and they must disarm this nuclear weapons program. by cutting off kim jong un's access to the hard currency he needs for his army and his weapons, h.r. 757 will return us to the one strategy that has worked -- financial pressure on the north korean regime. so i urge the passage of this bill and, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 757. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mr. royce: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise to ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and xtend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 2017, including an exchange of letters between the committees on energy and commerce and the judiciary. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 611 and rule 18, the chair

declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2017. the chair appoints the gentleman from louisiana, mr. graves, to preside over the ommittee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2017 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act to improve and clarify certain disclosure requirements for restaurants and similar retail food establishments, and to amend the authority to bring proceedings under section 403-a the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. guthrie, and the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr.

chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. guthrie: mr. chairman, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 2017, the common sense nutrition disclosure act, sponsored by our conference chair, cathy mcmorris rodgers, and representative loretta sanchez. this legislation, first and foremost, is making menu labeling work for the american people and american businesses, providing accurate information to consumers when they're deciding what to order is at the heart of this bill. this is not about hiding the calorie information. this bill is about making menu labeling requirements work for the entire industry. it seems obvious to me that a one-size-fits-all solution will not work for all restaurant chains. yet, f.d.a.'s menu labeling regulation does just that. and its burdensome rules have raised alarm bells with businesses across the country. convenient stores, takeout restaurants, pizza restaurants, movie theaters, amusement parks, bowling alleys and chain

restaurants, i think it's fair to say can be very different. expecting these distinct businesses to all comply with the same standard is simply not reasonable. in fact, it's ridiculous. furthermore, f.d.a.'s existing regulations force businesses to provide information that is often useless to the consumer. the common sense nutrition disclosure act provides calorie information to the customers when it would actually be helpful before they order. knowing how many calories are in your meal is at the point -- at the point of purchase is not going to help everyone. having calorie information when you place your order will help customers make better decisions. the rules will expos restaurants and re-- expose restaurants and retailers to rsh -- and it will protect from frivolous lawsuits. our bill address impractical

f.d.a. regulations. for example, fliers and advertisements were never meant to be menu but the f.d.a. said they consider them menus. f.d.a. had a chance to make corrections and they did not. this must be fixed and our bill does just that. this bill came to our subcommittee on health with a voice vote. in full committee, it passed with a bipartisan vote of 36-12-1. i look forward to passing h.r. 2017 through the house with an even stronger bipartisan vote. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2017, and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois. ms. schakowsky: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. and i rise in opposite -- strong opposition to h.r. 2017, the so-called common sense

nutrition disclosure act, and far from common sense, this unnecessary legislation would deny consumers critical information about the food that we eat. i began my career a long time ago as a consumer advocate joining together with a small group of housewives to get retailers to put expiration dates on the products they sell. this is way back in 1970 when every single item in the grocery store was code dated. and now expiration dates are on nearly every single product because this change was good, not only for consumers, but for retailers. they were able to control their inven tear much better because dates are on the food, and we can control our refrigerators a little bit better as well. consumers can make better decisions with better information, and retailers can control their inventory.

and similarly, i believe menu labeling would be helpful to both consumers and retail food establishments as more and more people are asking for this information and making smart decisions. because at a time when over 78 million adult americans are obese and the estimated cost of obesity in the united states is $147 billion a year, we should be embracing efforts to reduce this enormous cost to our health care system. and in fact, a recent harvard study found restaurant menu calorie labeling could save over $4.6 billion in health care costs over 10 years. that's not chump change. countless consumer and public health organizations oppose h.r. 2017. that includes the american diabetes association, the

american cancer society, the american heart association, the american public health association, the center for science and the public interest , and supporters claim that menu labeling requirements would be too difficult to implement and that's what i heard from my colleague, but we know this isn't true. why? because california and new york city and the state of vermont and several counties around the country have successfully implemented menu labeling. ofrpble chain restaurants with 20 or more restaurants operating under the same name. this is not about small businesses, must post calorie information. many of these chains have already had to comply with menu labeling in the places where it's currently required. in addition, the national restaurant association has long supported menu labeling, and

consumers find this to be an asset. claims that implementation of menu labeling has been rushed or has not allowed industry to weigh in are simply false. it's been six years since the law first passed giving industry plenty of time to weigh in with the f.d.a. and implementation. the f.d.a. had already issued a one-year extension and the f.y. 2016 omnibus delayed implementation even further. the f.d.a. has allowed for plenty of industry participation through the six-year process, and their final regulations provide a great deal of flexibility. h.r. 2017 would not only decrease consumer access to calorie information, but it would allow for inconsistent or confusing menu information. this legislation, for example, allows food establishments to

simply make up their own serving size. for example, the bill would allow establishments to list the calories for one chicken wing as opposed to an order of chicken wings and wouldn't require the total number of calories to be listed. we have also heard that many establishments, especially chain pizza restaurants, claim that menu labeling would be too difficult for them to account for all the variations in their menu official. let's be clear -- offerings. let's be clear pizza chains only need to post calories for the standard menu items they list on their menu boards. not every possible combination. clearly california's figured it out and vermont and the city of new york. but i also took it upon myself to come up with an easy template for pizza restaurants to use, and that's free of charge.

i'm not going to charge them, that shows how easy it is for them to clearly display the calorie information and account for the different pizza options. so you can see right here. we have one slice of cheese pizza, i made up these calories, i think they are way too low, let's say one slice of cheese pizza is $250 calories, god bless them if they can do that. so then sausage, you would add calories, mushrooms, you would add calories, pepperoni, add calories, onion. i think it's rather attractive. easy to read. and important for consumers. ms. is undeniably one of the most common menu items in america. one eight americans eats pizza. the united states spends $37 billion a year on pizza, which accounts for 1/3 of the global

pizza market. h.r. 2017 still requires the chain pisa restaurants calculate the calories for their menu items, so clearly it can't be that difficult to come up with this information. instead, this bill would allow them to present calorie information in a deceptive manner, and restrict consumer -- customer access to this information depending on where they place an order. given how often pizza is consumed, it is critical that consumers have access to accurate calorie information at all points of sale. more and more people are planning their caloric intake and make healthier decisions for themselves. we should be encouraging this. and providing consumers with the information they need to make smart decisions about their health. so i encourage my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary bill to confuse rves

consumers. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: -- the chair: the gentlewoman new york reserves. the gentleman from contract c mr. guthrie: we look at the nice labeling board presented it shows why h.r. 2017 is necessary, because if you look at that board that was simple, but it fails to sess phi the calories for each topping or calories added to a single slice. under f.d.a. regulations the guidance -- and guidance the menu must specify the sausage, mush room, pepperoni, as added basic to the slice of pizza with the word spelled out, you can't use the plus symbol, which f.d.a. specifically said is not permitted. it fails to declare calories for slice of topping for each size. the f.d.a. regulations require that calories be declared for each slice, topping, as applied to each size. it shows why we need to move

forward. it also doesn't say that 2,000 calories a day is used for general nutrition. but calorie needs vary. i would like to yield three minutes to the chairman of the full committee. my good friend from michigan, mr. upton. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. upton: i thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in strong support of this bill, h.r. 2017, commonsense nutrition disclosure act. simply put, this is a bipartisan bill that would impose commonsense where it's sorely needed, the final food labeling rule issued by this administration. we have a classic example of the administration overreaching with a top down big government approach. its impact is wide ranging and will negatively impact your local pisa places, convenient stores, grocery stores, amusement parks, movie theaters, ice cream stores. you name it. the administration's own estimate states that this regulation could cost american businesses as much as $1

billion to comply. and $500,000 -- 500,000 hours of paperwork. all on small businesses. that's a huge chunk of time and money that would be better spent hiring more folks or creating improved experiences for customers. michigan's own domino pizza illustrates just how this rule simply doesn't work. they have literally hundreds and hundreds of different potential order combinations. large pizzas, small, medium, thick, thin and crispy. right now they've got an online calculator that will determine nutritional information so that when you order from your computer or your app you can see the precise nutrition information on that pizza. when 91% of orders are placed online, it doesn't make much sense for dominos to have an instore menu board that won't

provide precise nutrition information for customers on literally hundreds of different choices. yet that's what the final food labeling would require. we live in an innovative world. with businesses like uber eats that bring all kinds of food with the click of a button to consumers' board steps. the menu board won't be impactful and it's not the solution to many labeling. the commonsense nutrition disclosure act prevents these onerous burdens and puts in place a frame worning that actually works for consumers and businesses. i want to thank in particular kathy mcmorris rodgers, loretta sanchez for their bipartisan work. extra 30 seconds. for their bipartisan work to advance a workable pragmatic solution that focuses on consumers and small businesses. as was noted, it did pass in our committee 36-12, with one voting present. i look forward to an even stronger bipartisan vote today.

and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. guthrie: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. mitts schakowsky: i am -- ms. schakowsky: i am proud to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, sheila jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished lady. i ask to revise and extend. i also thank my good friend, move as quickly as i possibly k -- k these legislative issues are important to us and we realize there is a difference of opinion. so i don't come to the floor harking with great adversity, but i do come with a reasonable to nse to my opposition 2017 in terms of its overall impact. so i'd like to say that it is overly broad in its approach to address narrow concerns from the pizza industry and other

food establishments that are better resolved through guidance. the bill will reduce the likelihood that consumers will receive clear and consistent calorie information at chain food service establishments, and the bill weakens an important tool intended to help americans make informed food choices at a time when obesity and other nutrition related health problems are at crisis. our constituents have gotten used to seeing the calorie content. they look for t they want transparency. -- it. they want transparency. obviously americans eat less than the recommended amounts of vegetables and fruits and whole grain, dairy products, and oil. although we are not the big brother, we have to create opportunities for such. i live in communities where there are food deserts. more than 23 million americans, including 6.5 million children, live in food deserts, areas more than a mile away from a supermarket. in 2008, an estimated 49.1 million people, including 16.7 million children, experienced

food insecurity. limited availability of safe and nutritionally adequate foods multiple times throughout the year. so any time there can be an increased knowledge about the nutrition of a food product, that is crucial. in addition, as the co-chair and founder of the congressional children's caucus, i worked on the issues of childhood obesity. data from 2009 indicates 78 million u.s. adults and 12.5 million, 16.the% children are obese. we need to help those individuals, both in terms of their own confidence about themselves, but to eat healthy. so i rise today to oppose this legislation because i believe we can find a better place of guidance. and i offer a letter to the record, mr. chairman, from the national restaurant association, which says that we are writing to inform you of our opposition to h.r. 2017. the legislation would create an unfair advantage between

competitors by specifically carving out segments of the food service marketplace from the federal requirements. this is the national restaurant association. but then i received a letter from the trust for america's health. they, too, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization have asked which would weaken and partially repeal critical food and drug administration, f.d.a. menu labeling. the bill as i said is scheduled to come and here we are today. my final points are this. if we have a problem let's try to work it out, but let's not take a sledgehammer and sledge ham the requirements that help americans have transparent information about their food. with that i thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's request is covered by general leave. ms. schakowsky: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: i now yield two minutes to my good friend from florida, mr. bilirakis. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized tore two

minutes. mr. bilirakis: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to my good friend from contract c i rise today in support of h.r. 2017, the commonsense nutrition disclosure act. this bill, as the name suggests, truly is a commonsense bill. h.r. 2017 would lift many of the burdens on small businesses and help protect establishments from excessive regulations. this summer i visited many florida food producers, distributors, and restaurants including one of the local public supermarkets and land o lakes florida where employees showed me how current policies and excessive regulations impact their store. however, it was clear that reasonable regulations are needed. this bill allows for providing nutritional information to consumers based on the different ways that foods are prepared and sold across venues and formats. i thank chairman mcmorris

rodgers for sponsoring the bill and the committee for their good work. and i urge passage of this great bill. h.r. 2017. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. guthrie: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. ms. schakowsky: i'm really glad to introduce the gentleman from california, mark desauliner, who has experience with this particular legislation. i yield him three minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. desauliner: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. chairman, thank you. i rise to express my strong opposition to h.r. 2017, and i do this in the context of my background and professional life, 40 years in the restaurant business. started as a bus boy and a dishwasher. i have worked in chain restaurants and fast food, and owned multiple fine dining restaurants in the bay area and have done consulting to

restaurants throughout california. and i was an author along with a colleague in the state legislature at that time the first statewide menu labeling legislation in the country in california. my colleague had been on the l.a. city council, hi been in local government in the bay area, we had started in local government doing this. we took two years, from 2006 to 2008, to work with a republican administration and a democratic leadership of both houses in california, and work with the california restaurant association which i was a long time member of. . at the end of the day we included all interested. and what we had was a remarkable piece of legislation that is helping to address what the center for disease control called over 10 years ago a national epidemic in this country, a national epidemic of obesity, particularly for qung people. for young -- young people. for young americans, as much as 2/3 of them deal with obesity every day, are overnight.

and obesity-related diseases like diabetes type 2 has expanded over 300% since 1971 when many of us were younger. so this is a national epidemic. when we were doing the legislation in california, we considered cost benefits and we worked, as i said before, with the restaurant association. so as somebody who spent four years in the restaurant association, and they were independent restaurants, so i understand this would not apply directly, but many of those restaurants already started on their own and the consumers responded to it in the context of this national crisis. so here is a piece of legislation that the administration is continuing to work in full faith with the stakeholders on. why not let them continue? it's a major piece of prevention. it's a major piece of public health. i've been in the restaurant business long enough to remember when mothers against drunk drivers brought their issues to the restaurant industry and said that we should do something about the epidemic of drunk driving

deaths and we did. and the restaurant industry put up a struggle and thought it would be the end of it. i've been in the business long enough to remember second-hand smoke where people said, this would be the end of us. i know how hard it is to keep a restaurant open. it's one of the most daunting things you can do in life. i know the importance of them in the community where more and more americans with two income households rely on restaurants and dying out to provide for their families but therein lies the crisis. it responded when we had drunk driving crisis and second-hand when you remember were engulfed into smoke and we know how we reduced it and led the world. i know the united states, and in california, we led the world. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. desauliner: and i can say you can remedy, as somebody with my background -- ms. schakowsky: hold on a second. i would -- i will yield the gentleman another minute.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. desauliner: thank you, mr. chairman. i would just urge my colleagues, given the experience i've had and others and the urgens of the issue of public health in this country to vote no. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. ms. schakowsky: i reserve the balance of my time. could i inquire how much time we have? the chair: the gentlewoman has 16 1/2 minutes. ms. schakowsky: 16? the chair: 16 1/2. ms. schakowsky: thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield to my good friend from california, ms. sanchez. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. this is an issue i care a lot about. diabetes runs in my family, and i'm talking generations worth. so one of the ways that you combat diabetes is through

nutrition and through exercise. so i watch everything that i eat. and i am very grateful that when i go to a restaurant they put the calorie count on the different pieces on the menu. i'm very grateful that when i go into a 7-eleven or some other type of convenient store there is calorie count and serving size on everything that i buy there. so this is very important to me. but at the same time i have been a small business woman. i had a small business, and i know how difficult it is to be a small , to business, trying to make a profit. and i think that this particular regulation -- not law -- because when we passed the affordable care act, we

said let's help people make good nutrition decisions and i agree with that. but then we had a regulatory agency that made these regulations that just don't make sense. and this is what this bill is about. ms. jackson lee, one of my colleagues, said this is easy. let's just work it out. but the reality is, we have been at this for almost two or three years and we have not been able to work it out at the table. this is very, very important. there is just a letter of opposition put into the record from the national restaurant association. yes, early on to this bill they were opposed. but the thing that they were opposed to was the 50% rule. and we've taken that out of this. o i would just like to say

the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. guthrie: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. sanchez: thank you. i would say that the common sense nutrition disclosure act rhames to fix these problems and to help small businesses meet the intention of the law. i think it's very unfair if you walk into a 7-eleven and because something is taken out of its package and is put in a toaster oven that all of a sudden new -- another place has to put the calories. so i would ask my colleagues, please, let's do the right thing. let's help consumers be smart about what they're eating and let's -- let businesses go about their business. thank you. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. guthrie: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized.

ms. schakowsky: well, it is really my pleasure now to introduce the wonderful consumer advocate who is fighting issues on nutrition and consumer information for such a long time and who is so knowledgeable about the importance of information for consumers and that is congresswoman rosa delauro of connecticut for five minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 2017, the common sense nutrition disclosure act of 2015. as many of you know, i have been a long-standing champion of menu labeling and i fought to secure its inclusion in the affordable care act. in fact, i was the original

author of the house menu labeling bill. and when the congress passed standardized labeling in 2010, what was the goal? arm americans, the right to know, information they need to make informed nutritional decisions for themselves and for their families. the language was built on consensus and compromise and worked out between a wide variety of interests, including many industry partners and i can find you the quotes from the national restaurant association where we stood together to make the announcement to put calories up on menu boards where people could see them and make the decision about what they were going to purchase at the point of purchase. now, certain sectors of the industry want to tear down the progress that we have made. this bill would weaken and

repeal a crucial step to combat the obesity epidemic in the united states. this bill increases consumer confusion, allows restaurants to list deceptive portion sizes, listing an entree at multiple servings even though these items are often consumed by one person. for example, a restaurant could list the caloric content of one chicken wing, deciding that one chicken wing is a serving size. but people do not eat just one chicken wing. under the proposed bill, a restaurant would not be obligated to inform a consumer that their 12 chicken wings in an order, which can lead to consumers making misinformed decisions based on misleading information, consuming far more calories than they ever realized. this bill would also deny consumers the right to

nutritional information at that point of purchase. even if 49% of orders are placed from in-store menus. food establishments, what they would like to do is bury menu labeling online. multiple studies have shown that providing calorie menu information can leapt americans make lower calorie choices, but they cannot do this if they do not have the information they need. it also weakens enforcement, consumer protection. it would completely remove an establishment incentive to comply with menu labeling requirements. it also removes the ability of individuals to hold retail establishments accountable for violations to the food labeling law. many public interests, health organizations are concerned about the ability of citizens to take action on noncompliance to menu labeling standards. given that the food and drug administration has chronically -- is chronically underfunded, this would be a serious setback. we live in a country where

obesity is an epidemic. in march, 2015, sales at restaurants and bars surpassed spending at grocery stores for the first time ever. on an average day, one out of three americans eat at a fast food restaurant. americans are eating nearly half of their meals and snacks outside the home. so nutritional information must be made readily available, where the consumer is at a point of purchase. children are especially at risk. today, more than a third of children an adolescence are overweight and obesed and children eat twice as many calories at a restaurant than they do at home. the impact on our kids alone should be reason enough to oppose a measure that undermines the consumers' ability to make an informed nutritional choice at mealtime. the good news is that menu labeling works. 2015 study at harvard found menu labeling could save $1.4

billion in health care costs over 10 years. a national poll found that 80% of americans support menu labeling in chained restaurants. over 100 nutrition and health organizations support menu labeling, along with trade associations, like the national restaurant association, chain restaurants such as mcdonald's, chili's and ihop. restaurants with less than 20 locations, a mom and pop, small businesses are excluded. your local grocery store is excluded. it has been six years since the original labeling law passed. there's been two-year delay in its full implementation. the food and drug administration is actually -- has actually gone almost door to door to address their concerns. we should let them work through this process rather than complicating it with this legislation, which is just industry's answer to gutting the legislation. 30 seconds? ms. schakowsky: i yield as much

time as the gentlelady would choose to consume. the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for as much time as she wishes to consume. ms. delauro: let them work through the process. we would be undoing years of meaningful, impactful work on menu labeling with a single stroke. this is a special interest-driven bill. o one is suggesting that every permutation of a meal has to be chained and listed on a menu board. that is false. that is misrepresentation. you take the standard menu and you put that up there. and if the same is true of pizza places, it's the same as true as the deli counter in a convenient store. do not let an industry that doesn't want to provide

information to the american people about what they are ating and what the calorie content. when we started this we talked about calories and sodium and a whole bunch of other things, but it was working with the industry that i did at that time that said, no, let's put calories up there. that's reasonable. we don't have to go further than that, and they stood side by side with me and we went to restaurants where we saw what the calorie count was on the label and they were perfectly happy with it. subsections of this industry have refused to do what the broad based industry has wanted to do. this is industry-driven, it's not the answer, it would undo over five years of progress on menu labeling. it hurts the american public. it hurts our children, and i urge all of my colleagues to oppose it.

the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from illinois -- ms. schakowsky: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: thank you. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to a good friend from iowa, mr. blum. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. blum: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 2017, the common sense nutrition disclosure act. this commonsense bipartisan legislation would change the f.d.a.'s burdensome and impractical labeling of prepared food items in grocery stores and convenient stores into a more workable and efficient solution that helps keep food costs down for consumers. in the first district of iowa, many of my constituents stop by local businesses like casey's general stores or hivee supermarkets to get a hot breakfast or pick up a convenient meal over their lunch break. these stores often use local ingredients and offer specialty

items which means their recipes and nutritional content can vary. under the f.d.a.'s regulation, casey's, hivee and any other business impacted by the rule can be penalized for failing to label accurately a sandwich that happens to get an extra quirt of mayo. h.r. 2017 would fix these issues by providing a menu board, listing nutritional information for prepared items instead of forcing these businesses to pass on excessive labeling compliance costs onto their customers. . furthermore, as a career small business man, i know how tough it is to compete with massive corporations and excessive red tape like this makes it even harder. while large corporations can often afford the added costs, it's the smaller businesses that get squeezed out of the marketplace by the extra burden of ever increasing red tape. mr. speaker, the f.d.a.'s regulation is just another

example of washington overreach that forces businesses to push costs on to customers with no added benefit. i'm proud to co-sponsor this bill and i urge my colleagues to join me voting in favor of h.r. 2017. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. guthrie: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. ms. schakowsky: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from kentucky virginia tech. mr. guthrie: i yield two minutes to my good friend from michigan, mr. walberg. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of the commonsense nutrition disclosure act. this bipartisan bill would protect small businesses from overbearing f.d.a. regulation that is harm workers, job creators, and our economy, and, oh, by the way, personal freedom of choice for

individual citizens. who in most cases make good decisions and ought to have the choice in america. the f.d.a.'s poorly designed menu labeling requirements do not take into account the diversity of restaurants and food products. that's america. the estimated costs for places like delis, convenience stores, and pisa reas to comply would be more than -- pizza reas to comply would be more than $1 billion. we are here today to offer a practical alternative that would rein in and clarify the f.d.a.'s burdensome one-size-fits-all afroach. this commonsense bill offers an efficient and i believe effective solution by giving small businesses greater flexibility to provide nutrition information in a way that best serves their customers. i urge its passage and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from

kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. ms. schakowsky: thank you. the previous speaker said that this is all about choice. and i agree with that. i think it is all about choice. and having the kind of information to make a proper choice. let me just give you an example a a menu from subway, from montgomery county, maryland. this is from subway, who lists the calories. and in a standardized way. and that's what the original regulations and law required before this confusing change in the legislation. it says, for example, that a subway melt is 380 calories and a chicken and bacon ranch is 580 calories. now, one would not necessarily

assume that a subway melt, that sounds cheesy and kind of rich, would be actually less calories by 200 from a chicken and bacon ranch. and for me, and i think for many consumers, to go in and be able to see that and know that that is going to be the andard way that calories are presented. this legislation would allow such things as this. the covered establishments could make their own decision about what is a serving size. it wouldn't be the same from establishment to establishment. so, for example, this allows covered establishments to not list the total number of servings for an item on the menu like a platter of a certain appetizer. for example, an appetizer could list the calories as 400

calories, but not disclose that one platter, just one order, has three servings for a total of 1,200 calories. 400 versus 1,200 calories. this presents real confusion. and i would argue isinformation to the consumer. more and more americans are eating food outside of the home , prepared by restaurants or chain grocery stores where they have a section on prepared foods so more and more in order to have complete decisionmaking power, it's very important that we have the calories that are there and posted and obviously this is not overburdening, certainly not small businesses because this isn't about small

businesses, and when we have the largest state in the country, already having these regulations, operating smoothly, when we've got the second largest city in the country, city of new york, when we have the state of vermont -- these are very different kinds of locations being able to comply with the f.d.a. regulations and the law that we want to go into effect next year, we do not need h.r. 2017 to confuse and disarm consumers. not providing them with the information they need. and it's just -- i have another menu from specialty pizza, build your own pizza, what it has is a range of calories. this is not -- it would not be overburdening to have for every single different iteration of a pizza to have all of the

different calories. there are options and flexibility under the legislation. it doesn't need to be changed. and undermined by h.r. 2017. if we are serious about dealing ith one of the most important, expensive, and ubiquitous diseases in the united states of america, diabetes, one of the greatest problems that we face, which is obesity in adult and especially in children, then i think we owe it to our families to make sure that we a ot pass h.r. 2017, special interest driven bill to decrease consumer access to important nutrition and calorie information. i yield back my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois yields back her time. the gentleman from kentucky virginia tech.

mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity to be here. let me again state what this bill is not. it's not doing away with the calorie counts or the ability for people to understand what calorie content or caloric content is available in each product. i'm one that looks at that. i don't know of anything that has a calorie count on anything that i have recently and looked at it and checked out the serving size. i know how many chicken wings i want to order if i can get the calories per chicken wing, i can make that determination. we looked at the menu board that was offered earlier and it looked simple, and this is the issue. how do you get the information -- even if you put ranges, how do you get information in people's hands? i was at a restaurant when i was traveling in my district the other day that had calories for a different orders almost from 400 to 800 on one. we want to make it available in a way that's sufficient and where most people now get their information not necessarily on a board, we have to have big

ranges, but specific. one pizza restaurant alone, we had the pizza slice plus a few toppings, but what if you had five styles of crusts, six different cheeses, five sauces, four sizes, and 20 different toppings which you put that together comes to about 34 million different combinations. deviations from the standard the f.d.a. has put forward can lead to fines and criminal penalties. so what we are looking at, as my friend from california said, incredibly complex, burdenson, and inflexible what we don't to do, is trade exemptions nor does it diminish the amount of information that must be provided by restaurants or retailers. all it does is allow for some plecksb flexibility and clarify the unworkable and overly complex regulations the f.d.a. finalized in november, 2014. if they weren't overly cumbersome. that's what happens here. they are unworkable and we go

to delafmente we delayed an omnibus. they are going to be unworkable six months from now, a year from now, let's fix it so our businesses know what to provide throughout threat of penalty because they'll know what to provide and what consumer can make choices. i'm one that wants that information because i want to be able to make that choice for myself and my family. i close and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce printed in the bill. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 114-421. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a

member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it's now in order to consider amendment number 1, printed in house report 114-421. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? mrs. mcmorris rodgers: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in house report number 114-421, offered by mrs. mcmorris rodgers of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 611rk the gentlewoman from washington, mrs. mcmorris rodgers, and a member opposed, each will o control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from washington. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, mr. chairman. the amendment i'm offering is a clarifying amendment. current law requires that restaurants have a reasonable basis for how to determine the calorie count that ultimately disclose to their customers. the f.d.a.'s final rule does

not accommodate for the vare yibblet that is involved when-- variable it that is involved when preparing food. especially when chefs are preparing custom order items. mistakes and variations are inevitable. if someone is making a pizza and adding a handful of every topping, chef hands are different sizes meaning people may end up with more or less of each ingredient. the amendment will provide the added flexibility that we want for food establishments to determine accurate, nutriant disclosures by allowing for permissible variations like inadvertent human error. while also assuring that businesses and their employees will not be criminally penalized. i want to address some of the concerns by my colleagues from across the identical that have been raised about the underlying legislation, h.r. 2017. this bill is not about the merits of calorie count. this bill does not remove any

requirements for calorie counts on menus. and this bill certainly does not make it more difficult for customers to receive nutritional information. this bill at its very core is about flexibility. in trying to create a uniform standard, the f.d.a.'s rule attempts a one-size-fits-all approach to an industry as diverse as its ingredients. every deli and salad bar offering, every possible pizza topping combination will soon have to be calculated and their calorie count displayed on physical menus. it's problematic for two reasons. first, the made-to-order portion of the food industry offers endless constantly changing combinations of ingredients. for some sandwich shops and pisa rias, the possibility are tens of millions. the f.d.a. wants these restaurants to put on paper all these variations and calorie counts and have it publicly

displayed in the restaurant. it's unrealistic. second, digital and online ordering is many customers' preferred method of ordering. nearly 90% of orders are placed by an individual never stepping foot into the restaurant. so tell me, why does it make sense to force a restaurant to have a physical menu with calorie listings when 90% of your customers aren't ever going to see it? and how does it make sense to force a customer to navigate millions of combinations to find a nutritional information that matches their order? this legislation provides flexibility in how these restaurants provide the nutritional information. it makes it easier for customers to actually see and understand the information because it's displayed where the customer actually places the order. . including by phone, online or through mobile apps.

by bringing this rule no the 21st century, customers can trust that they are getting more reliable information in an easy-to-access consumer-friendly way. it protects small business owners and their employees from frivolous lawsuits and criminal actions that could be honest, inadvertent human error. accidentally putting too many pickles on a sandwich and increasing its calorie count should not be a criminal offense. this bill is about trusting people through their elected representatives to make their own decisions and pursue their own dreams. it's all part of a choice that we're offering america as we move forward in 2016. before i close, i want to thank my colleagues and the stakeholders, including the national restaurant association, which has withdrawn its previous opposition to the bill, for their hard work in this bipartisan effort. thank you. thank you, everyone. it's been a team effort and i appreciate your support. and finally, i encourage my

colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important amendment and ultimately vote yes for the bipartisan common sense nutrition disclosure act. and, mr. chairman, i would also ask unanimous consent to offer this letter from the national grocer's association into the official record. the chair: that will be covered by general leave. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from washington reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? ms. schakowsky: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. schakowsky: i rise in opposition to this amendment by representatives mcmorris rodgers and karenas. -- cardenas. one could call it flexibility, which actually the current legislation provides, and others, including me, would call it adding confusion. under the federal menu label

law, restaurants and retail food establishments are supposed to have a reasonable basis for determining calorie and nutrition information for their menu items. this can be done using a nutrient database such as usda newtryant database, cookbooks, nutrition fact labels or f.d.a. nutrient values, among others. again, f.d.a. is allowing significant flexibility, as it is, and how establishments determine this information. what is most important to the agency is that this information is accurate and consistent. some stakeholders have raised concerns about changes to the nutrition information based on an employee being too heavy-handed with one ingredient like pickles or not following the recipe appropriately. we can all understand in cooking this type of flexibility is needed. f.d.a.'s guidance addresses the question of how closely standard items must match the nutrient values, advising that

a establishment, quote, must take reasonable steps to ensure that how you prepare your product and how you serve your product are the same as those used to determine the calorie and nutrition -- nutrient declarations, unquote. the mcmorris rodgers-cardenas amendment, further undermines, the quote, reasonable basis, unquote, standard outlined in 18 -- in h.r. 2017, and in f.d.a.'s final rule by permitting any type of variation for any reason from the nutrient content disclosed to the actual nutrient content in the standard menu item. under this amendment, a restaurant will be able to change their recipe or how they prepare the food or swap out one ingredient for another and not have to change the nutrient information they disclose to account for these variations. this amendment would also allow for further inconsistencies from restaurant-to-straint or grocery store-to-grocery store as to what may be a permissible

-- may not be permissible to others. again, potentially creating an uneven playing field among the industry. it is also important to note that this amendment is inconsistent with requirements for food labeling under the federal food, drug and cosmetic act. this requires food labeling be truthful and not misleading if nutrient content disclosures can vary for any reason, to any extent, it would undermine during the federal food, drug and cosmetic act, something they have long had to meet. as we said all along, calorie and nutrition information to be valuable to consumers, it must be accurate and it must be consistent. if consumers have no reason to believe what is disclosed by a restaurant is accurate, then the disclosure of nutrients is not meaningful. i believe they provided flexibility how nutrient content is disclosed and i know

they're working with establishments to meet the requirement of providing accurate nutrition information in a way that's feasible for the establishment and i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. and i would like to inquire how much time is left. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. schakowsky: thank you. i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: for 30 seconds. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: we are not getting rid of the reasonable basis definition. and it does not allow for any variation. what it says is where there's inadvertent human error there would not be criminal penaltieses attached to it. with that -- penalties attached to it. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from washington yields back. the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. ms. schakowsky: i yield my remaining time goes to congresswoman rosa delauro. the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for 1

1/2 minutes. ms. delauro: let me make a point the fact that's been mentioned that people can go online, they can find their information in that way. 49% of orders are placed from in-store menus. food establishments can vary anything online. not everyone has access to that kind of information. and all of the studies have determined that you make your choice at the point of purchase. i want to make one other comment because the national restaurant association has been talked about here this morning. let me just quote to you. scott, executive vice president of the national restaurant association, praised the menu labeling law when the two of us stood to introduce this legislation six years ago. and he said why was it a good thing to do and why did he praise it and why was the

national restaurant association four square for it, quote, it sets a clear national standard across the country. they were opposed to this bill. they have been all along. god only knows what happened in the last 24 or 48 hours to have the national restaurant association, which we stood shoulder-to-shoulder as we passed this unbelievably record-breaking bill in order to allow people to know what they are reading, make their own choice and to know the calorie content of foods, standardized menus. the variations are not there. so much misinformation being peddled on this floor today about what was a bill to protect the american public. i thank the gentlelady from illinois. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. all time being used, the

question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. schakowsky: i request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington will be postponed. the chair understands that amendment number 2 will not be offered. it's now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-421. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. schrader: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chair. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-421 offered by mr. schrader of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 611, the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. schrader: thank you very much, mr. chairman. though i support efforts to clarify rules, as they apply to consumers and small businesses,

this bill, as currently constructed, creates an inequity in the industry by creating an exception for many menu labeling rules for certain establishments, particularly chain pizza shops and other restaurants that could potentially serve their customers via remote ordering. i believe all restaurants should be treated equally. my amendment ensures the rules are applied fairly by removing this exemption from the bill. under the terms of the bill, most chain restaurants will be required to list calories on menus at the point of purchase. pizza chains and other establishments, where most orders could be placed offset, would gain an exemption from this rule. they won't be required to list calorie information on their brick and mortar locations. it's an unfair exemption. while the vast majority of chained restaurants will be asked to list calories in their locations, these will not.

it's confusing to the consumers who are actually trying to protect what this bill and -- in this current bill. they'll see calorie information at one restaurant but not necessarily at their local pizza shop. opponents of the f.d.a. rule argue the provision is necessary because pizza restaurants offer many menu items that won't be able to comply with the rule. this is simply not true. the f.d.a. rule allows variation on menu labeling. i agree one size fits all don't fit. the national restaurant association has indicated that most of the members are preparing to comply with the menu labeling rules. by all means, the f.d.a. should assist these restaurants with proper guidance. but specifying an exemption to ne segment is unfair, unhe can wimbledon. and they are supposed to post calorie information online rather than in the physical locations for pizza shops.

if my amendment is adopted, these restaurants will still be able to offer these -- this information online. in fact, many restaurants already do so. those businesses should be commended for their transparency. mr. chairman, we don't need to add unfair and confusing exemptions to the difficult menu labeling rule we already have. the f.d.a. has indicated their willingness to work with all affected to provide guidance and clarity to make compliance easier. this is what our businesses want and need. i ask my colleagues to join me in ensuring fairness for businesses and clarity for consumers. please reject this bill's unfair loophole and vote yes on this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. i express appreciation to my colleague who offers this amendment and yet i rise in opposition because in fact this

amendment undermines a key provision of the commonsense -- repeat that -- the common sense nutrition disclosure act which is a bipartisan bill that makes necessary changes to the f.d.a.'s menu labeling regulations. if indeed, as has been stated, the f.d.a. is willing to work and be flexible, we wouldn't need this legislation. it's because they have shown no real flexibility that this legislation's been offered. currently, f.d.a.'s menu labeling rules remain costly, ineffective and overly burdensome for more than 70,000 restaurants. that's no small number, mr. speaker. for places like pizza shops where the vast majority of orders are online and, yes, they are providing a service and most cases online for their - their customers on their own

voluntarily doing it and really doing it in a quality way. it's nearly impossible for a single menu board to be designed in a way that can provide accurate calorie counts or literally millions of combinations. f.d.a. sadly ignores the reality of a diverse market and technological advances, innovation, creativity, etc., by applying the same menu standard as a one-size-fits-all top-down approach, and that's the reality that's out there with the f.d.a. if the house accepts this amendment, which strips the remote ordering provision from the bill, it would greatly harm a bill that seeks to provide an alternative method for thousands of small businesses to effectively share nutritional information with consumers. the f.d.a. menu requirements simply do not make sense

neither for the restaurant nor for consumers. so i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, however well-meaning, and support the underlying bipartisan bill that protects small businesses from overbearing f.d.a. regulations that harm workers, job creators, consumers and our economy. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. >> mouch time is left? the chair: the gentleman from organ has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. >> i'd like to yield 30 second to the chair woman, ranking member. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for 30 second. ms. schakowsky: there are so many falsehoods in what my colleague said across the aisle. we have evidence in california and city of new york and vermont that absolutely restaurants can comply. it's not about small businesses.

it's about 20 more establishments with the same name. this idea of 50% online, this is not the vast majority of their information online, it's 50%. and we already know that 49% of orders at these establishments are done in person. what about those people who come in? are they entitled to the same thing that's in other restaurants? i support the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the the gentleman reserves. gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. walberg: i guess i'll respond briefly to that. it's truly about making this information meaningful. i watch my wife go online on her iphone, check calories all the time, she does it bert than i do. but consumers are moving that direction. i have walked through various industries, including dominos,

and seen the amazing, amazing technological advances that they have that are putting their consumers first and giving them the ability to know this in a far more meaningful way. than you can do on a menu board. i reject that argument. absolutely. in defense of the consumers as well as the industry. i yield -- i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from oregon virginia tech. mr. schroeder: i'm ready to close. the chair: the gentleman -- is the gentleman from michigan ready to close? mr. schroeder: i think i have the right to close. the chair: the gentleman from michigan -- the gentleman from oregon has the right to close. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. again i appreciate the concern that my colleague expresses here. and yet i still stand in very strong support of giving this opportunity, making sure that f.d.a. is pushed into a flexibility that i don't

believe they are willing to go. this is for the consumer. in the end, this allows advances to move within the market. i think we'll find that all concerns are met and addressed very well, but we don't put unnecessary burdens upon businesses, job providers, and ultimately on the choice of citizens to have a better opportunity to make better choices. oh, by the way, we reaffirm in our country the desire to give people personal responsibility an personal choice together. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yield back the balance of his time of the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. schroeder: thank you very appreciate der: i the gentleman. i want to assure him and out here the online order is still available. for seniors and for some of our less advantaged folks at home, they can go to the store and also get that information which

is not allowed under this current bill, would be allowed under my amendment. to the argument there are too many combinations to be accounted for, the f.d.a. does allow for flexibility, so they are accessible in different restaurant types. pisa shops in locations like new york, montgomery county, maryland, already complying with the rules. other restaurants have indicated a billingness to comply. including a national chain that sells coffee, doughnuts, and ice cream. they serve 15,000 different ways of coffee, an witches, 3,000, ice cream sun days, 8,000. they can comply under -- 80,000. they can comply under my amendment. why not anyone else? the national association says it's critical all business who is have made their stredge decision to sell restaurant food play by the same rules. furthermore, they talk about such provisions create inconsistent and erratic labeling by putting in these

exemptions. not only on restaurant but among restaurants, food service operators, gauchery stores, etc. my amendment removes this unfair exemption. very simple. government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers and private enterprise. the same rules should apply to everybody. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oregon yields back the balance of his time. the question sont amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon, so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, he noes have it. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 , further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 114-421 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number one by mrs. mcmorris rodgers of washington. amendment number 3 by mr. schrader of oregon. the chair will reduce to two minutes for the minimum time

for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number one printed in house report 114-421 by the gentlewoman from washington, mrs. mcmorris rodgers, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in house report number 114-421, offered by mrs. mcmorris rodgers of washington. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 309, nates are 100 with one voting present. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-421 by the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-421 offered by mr. schrader of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 148. the nays are 258. one voting present. he amendment is not adopted. the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises.

the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 2017, and pursuant to house resolution 611, i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2017, and pursuant to house resolution 611, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the committee amendment in the nature f a ubstitute of a substitute as amended.

so many as are in favor say aye, those opposed, no. the ayes have t the amendment is agreed to. the question is on the agreement -- engross many and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: bill to amend the federal food drug and cosmetic attack for requirements to restaurants and similar retail food establishments and the authority to bring proceedings under section 403-a. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. he noes have it. the gentlewoman from washington . mrs. mcmorris rodgers: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and

nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on passage of h.r. 2017 will be followed by a five-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 757. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 266. the nays are 144. one present. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california, mr. royce, to suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 757 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 757, an act to improve the enforcement of sanctions against the government of north korea, and or other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 407, the nays are two. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 408, the nays are two. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the

senate amendment is agreed to and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. would all members please remove their conversations from the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request

unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to remember the 50 men and women and the one unborn child who died seven years ago today in the crash of continental flight 3407. as erie county executive, i was in charge of the emergency response and one of the first people on the scene. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is crecked -- correct. the house is not in order. please remove your onversations from the floor. mr. collins: as erie county executive -- i was the one in charge of the emergency response and one of the first people on the scene. the plane crashed less than a

mile from my house. and i will never forget what i saw in the grief of the families who lost loved ones that fateful night. over the past seven years, flight 3407 families have been relentless in the fight to achieve one level of aviation safety for all airline carriers. from new training standards to guidelines that prevent pilot fatigue. on this seventh anniversary, we remember those who died that night and reinforce our commitment to ensure the safety measures, these -- measures these families have fought so hard to enact will stay in place. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the democratic whip task force on poverty, income inequality and opportunity was launched to bring to the forefront of

congress' attention the everyday challenges of americans living in poverty. on tuesday, the president sent us a budget that invests in meeting our greatest challenges, creating opportunity for all. an objective that all of us i think are committed to. the budget expands pell grants to make college more affordable and supports more apprenticeships and skills training. so that young people and others can make it in america. it doubles investment in clean energy and r&d to attract more jobs while tackling climate change. the president's budget expands access to quality child care and paid leave for working parents and provides children from low income families healthy meals over the summer months when you're out of school. .ut still eating, of course

it makes it easier to save for retirement, provides a better backstop for when economic circumstances push careers off track. now, mr. speaker, it's up to congress to craft a budget and i hope republicans will work with us to provide the opportunities necessary to escape poverty as speaker ryan says we ought to do. mr. speaker, i thank the chairwoman, barbara lee, and her members of the task force for undertaking and focusing on this important effort and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina eek recognition? mr. wilson: address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i'm grateful to recognize the accomplishments of the assistant secretary of defense for special operations in low-intensity conflict and congratulate him on his new position as director of the newly established global engagement center at the department of state. a decorated navy seal, the secretary has quickly distinguished himself at the pentagon as a senior advisor to the secretary of defense on all matters related to special

operations forces. he's also worked to develop special operations forces partnerships with foreign nations, to sustain and improve global counterterrorism operations. his engagement on this issue will ensure that special operations forces remain an effective component of defense strategy. secretary lumpkin has also enhanced efforts to counter narcotics, illicit trafficking and transnational organizationed crime. he has been instrumental in guiding counternarcotics and counteru.s. is operations successfully -- counterinsurgency operations successfully in the republic of colombia. i know his expertise will be greatly missed at the department of defense and look forward to seeing his accomplishments in his new role at the department of state. in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: address the house

for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i rise today to oppose a republican bill introduced yesterday that would let states use drug testing to determine low-income americans' eligibility to receive food assistance through snap, the supplemental nutrition assistance program. this is nothing more than an attempt to demonize poor people and has no basis in reality. similar laws in florida and georgia were struck down as unconstitutional and only wastes thousands of taxpayer dollars to identify very few drug users. in fact, those receiving public assistance test positive at a lower rate than the general population. why aren't my republican colleagues calling for drug testing for wealthy c.e.o.'s and oil company executives who receive taxpayer subsidies? why is it that they always pick on poor people? it's a lousy thing to do. snap is intended to help people put food on the table when they're struggling to find work, when their current job isn't paying enough or simply when they've fallen on hard times. we should be talking about improving the snap benefit so that families can afford nutritious food, not creating morin sulting hoops for

vulnerable families -- more insulting hoops for vulnerable families to have to jump through. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in sadness to honor the life and bravery of one of arkansas' finest citizens, ronald jason adams. on friday, january 22, mr. adams, a lieutenant of the sherwood, arkansas, fire department, with five years of experience, was shot and killed while responding to an emergency medical call in north little rock. mr. hill: he was just 29 years old. i was honored to attend a flash light vigil for jason on january 25 and was moved by the turnout by our entire community to honor his life. every time we lose one of our first responders, our community experiences a little fray or tear in our beautifully crafted quilt of our towns.

our first responders in arkansas and throughout the country deserve our gratitude and our respect and lieutenant adams' death was a tragic reminder of the dangers these brave men and women face every day. i extend my warmest regards and prayers to his loved ones. he'll be greatly missed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts eek recognition? without objection. mr. kennedy: mr. speaker, this black history month, as we celebrate and honor those who shaped american history, we cannot afford to lose sight of the present and our future. with only five decades ago that men and women in every corner of this country concluded their patient, persistent and peaceful march into the voting booth. gaining an equal voice in this country. you don't have to leave this chamber to see firsthand the scars that this march left behind.

for so many, including some of our colleagues, the memories of being denied that sacred right to vote have never and will never fade. unfortunately, mr. speaker, some of those similar memories are now forming again for a new generation of americans. respectfully, mr. speaker, i ask you to bring the voting rights amendment -- the voting rights amendment act to the floor immediately. our nation deserves a vote on this important legislation. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate colonel sandy best wholike the very first female general in the minnesota national guard. first in history with her promotion to the brigadier general next week. best will command the international guard units in minnesota, including the 133rd airlift wing at the

minneapolis-st. paul airplane. colonel best has served admirably as director of strategic relations and director of government relations for the minnesota national guard and her promotion is well deserved. colonel best will continue to play a critical role in helping keep our country safe and secure and will act as a leader for our -- to our military men and women in minnesota. not only that, this historic event is a welcome precedent for our other minnesota national guard members as i'm sure many other women will rise in ranks following in her footsteps. i look forward to working with colonel best, now general best in the future, as she continues to make minnesota air national guard among some of the best in the country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. perlmutter: i rise and ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. perlmutter: i thank the speaker and i rise today to congratulate the denver broncos on winning the 50th super bowl.

we have proposed a house resolution 614, colorado delegation, to congratulate our team. it's their third super bowl victory, and it's a culmination of a 12-4 season. the state of colorado, the city of denver and the rocky mountain west are extremely proud of the talented players, coaches and key personnel. i want to thank general manager john elway, c.e.o. joe ellis and the entire broncos front office who spent the off-season building a super bowl winner. head coach gary kubiak, coordinators wade philips and the broncos through their owners, the bowlen family had been a key success to denver and that team and we want to thank them very much. and i know i speak for everybody in the house of representatives when i say, go, broncos.

the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, five peace officers in the united states this week have been gunned down. one in north dakota, one in georgia, one in colorado and two in maryland. i'm going to talk about the two in approximate maryland. on february 10, a bitter winter day, two sheriff's deputies were called to a disturbance at a shopping center at be aington, maryland. as the deputies were attempting to speak to a disruptive individual, he held a gun to 52-year-old deputy patrick

daley, held it to his head and fired. killing him. deputy mark lockson pursued the asasson but he was also killed. later, the outlaw was shot and killed. daley was a life member of the volunteer fire department and spent 30 years defending the public as a sheriff's deputy. was a hero to his two now-fatherless children. lockston was a 40-year veteran leaving behind three children and his wife. both men had been honored for valor during their careers of protecting and serving the community. patrick and mark's lives were coldly and maliciously stolen, ripped away from the world and from their families. these men behind the badge are a special breed, a rare breed. they work selflessly maintaining and restoring order in our neighborhoods. they are the best of our nation. they protect us from evil,

cold, calculated criminals who wish to do harm to the rest of us. mr. speaker, we mourn the passing of these two law men who are cut above the rest of us. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the lady from california seek recognition? mrs. capps: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the lady is recognized for one minute. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the moon shot to end cancer. an historic investment in research in president obama's budget proposal. you know, for years, the burden of cancer has affected everyone in our nation. each and every day in communities, neighborhoods and families everywhere, including my own, ordinary americans and their loved ones are affected by cancer. as co-chair of the house cancer

caucus, i stand in solid aired with all patients and with those involved in their care and their support. the progress made in the last decade in reducing cancer mortality is a testament to the great potential of our scientific community but far too many have been left behind. and that is why with great hope i urge my colleagues to support funding for the cancer moon shot. we need to allow our scientific community to build on the strides they have made so far through comprehensive, multifaceted approaches to making real progress. by funding national institutes of health, the food and drug administration so that they may work in cinergy, we will tilize all the tools in our -- synergy, we will utilize all those.ls to help the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a

message from the senate. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed without amendment h.r. 487, an act to allow the miami tribe of oklahoma to lease or transfer certain lands. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to acknowledge and honor the life of a very good and personal friend, roger shrimp, who died unexpectedly on wednesday. roger and his wife, delsi, they live in oakdale, california, in my district. roger has been a shareholder and partner in the firm, damrel, shrimp, patrick and silva. mr. denham: roger is most known for being very pasionate not only about his practice but in

addressing many different areas within our communities. within his practice, he addressed cases before the u.s. supreme court, u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit, u.s. district court and the u.s. tax court of claims. in addition, he's gone before several state and local agencies. roger was also an active leader in many different local state and national organizations. since 1976, he was a member of the elite group of the santa barbara, california, ranchero vistas ories. he was appointed by governor wilson. he served a six-year term for the community of colleges. he also served on the executive board of the california state parks foundation. ever since joining the boy scouts of america in 1948, roger has been dedicated to the organization throughout the years. the eagle scout has held a variety of voluntary positions within the group, including national executive board. from 2007 to 2015, roger was

named one of the top attorneys in northern california by the northern california super lawyers magazine. mr. speaker, please join me in honoring and recognizing my good friend, roger shrimp, who will be missed by many. god bless him always. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the lady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the lady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you. mr. speaker, i want to tell the story of texas southern university. started out in houston, texas, in the early 1920's to educate then, of course, the colored or negro population and they've grown into the 21st century. but in 1940, they were expanded because a young man by the name of sweat attempted to attend the university of texas school of law and he was prohibited, he was prevented.

the law school was established that is now named thurgood marshall. but i really rise to say this school is a texas asset, and yet the state of texas publically has underfunded this university. in 2000, i helped settle a desegregation lawsuit of which that school had sued because it was discriminated against. sadly, i rise today to ask for another investigation by the department of education civil rights division because the state of texas is now again discriminating against the students and faculty of texas southern university by not funding them equally with other majority-based institutions. it's sad to rise today to say that, but in that school, barbara jordan graduated, our colleague, micky leyland graduated. many outstanding scientists and doctors. stop discriminating against texas southern university. we need to investigate it again to make this school whole. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the lady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous

consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today i rise to recognize the beacon place community center in roy keyingon and executive director bob. it focuses on the power of neighbors helping neighbors by offering a variety of services to the community. mr. dold: they recently received a grant from the community purse, which will help them expand neighborhood cooking classes, improve technology for after-school tutoring programs and obtain fresh produce for children in the summer. i visited beacon place in july and was inspired by the educational activities offered for the children. these programs help children sustain their math and reading skills throughout the summer. i had a great time in learning and painting with some of these children and i saw firsthand the benefit these resources will have in the waukegan

community. beacon place is truly a much-needed and inspiring program which is why i'm honored to be able to recognize them today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the lady from california seek recognition? ms. sanchez: mr. speaker, i'd like to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the lady is recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to commemorate black history month and the national association for the advancement of colored people, which was founded 107 years ago today. black history month is an opportunity for americans to reflect on its history, on the contributions of the african-american community to this country. on the injustices that they have endured through american history and how far we have gone and still need to go to end discrimination and racism

in america. this past weekend i attended the orange county heritage council's 36th annual orange county black history month parade and cultural fair. i had the honor to meet a lot of veterans there, including mr. warren buffy, a world war ii hero and at 103 years old, the oldest african-american living in orange county today. mr. buffy and others like him are a testament to the enduring legacy of african-americans' commitment to the military service. they went and yet they came back and there were no civil rights for them. so today we honor their contribution, this month we honor their contribution and i thank you and i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the lady yields back. for what reason does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to join the aspca in celebration of their event paws for love and bring attention to the importance of animal shelters throughout our country. it is an annual event hosted by the aspca as well as local animal shelters here in washington, d.c., featuring adoptable pets as long as providing information about adoption. mr. fitzpatrick: as an adoptive parent of a pitbull, i know firsthand the value that local animal shelters offer and how they offer a second chance and loving home to animals in need. as we've seen through natural recent disasters, animal shelters were placed in difficult situations when families evacuated were forced to separate from their pets. these shelters need our help. ensuring adequate funding for these programs is incredibly important, and i'm proud to be an outspoken advocate for

animal welfare and i look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues in the future. mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house n enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 1428, an act to extend privacy act remedies to citizens of certified states, nd for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. stivers of ohio for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request s granted.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the ajority leader. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, thank you very much. and thank you for being down here with me this afternoon. we've got our presidential primary coming up in georgia the first week of march, mr. speaker. and everybody's talking about what it means to be an american. where it is we want america to go. and i love that conversation. i love that it's happening on the democratic side of the aisle, i love that it's happening on the republican side of the aisle. i love that the happening in every household in america. what i don't hear as much conversation about, mr. wish that i did

is about that rule book for how america's supposed to be run called the united states constitution. folks seem to have a firm grasp on it when they want to be the president of the united states, they lose that grasp when they get to be president of the united states, because they want to serve, they so badly want to serve. what i have here, mr. speaker, is a couple of quotes from president obama. he says, i taught constitutional law for 10 years. i take the constitution very seriously. the biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with jordan bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through congress at all. and that's what i intend to reverse when i am president of the united states of america. that was at a pennsylvania town hall meeting, mr. speaker. when the president was running for office. as a senator, he could see clearly that article one, the house and the senate, was in charge of passing the laws, article two, the white house, was in charge of enforcing the

laws. and during the eight years that george bush was president, time and time again charges were made that the white house was taking the people's power from article one, mr. speaker, and carrying it down pennsylvania avenue to the white house. i quote from president obama again. i taught the constitution for 10 years, i believe in the constitution, and i will obey the constitution of the united states. we are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around congress. that was at montana campaign event back in 2008, mr. speaker. the president was absolutely right and republicans in this institution were absolutely wrong for not holding george bush during his eight years in the white house more accountable to his article two responsibilities and staying out of congress' article one responsibilities. but it was hard, mr. speaker.

it was after 9/11, i will forever wonder what america would have looked like, but for that fateful day. the president was off focusing on his agenda. we were not campaigning on 9/11 issues in that election. we were campaigning on domestic issues, economic issues, the economy was on fire. and then everything changed. and so i would argue that many of my republican colleagues, you and i were not here at that time, mr. speaker, but many of my republican colleagues cut president bush a lot of slack. america was in crisis. the nation was under attack. and we said, you know what, the constitution does give the president special responsibilities during these times of national crisis. and i'm willing to allow him to adopt a little more authority, i'm willing to be a little more deferential to the president during these difficult times. president obama saw that as then senator obama and he said, that's wrong, that's wrong. republicans are not supposed to be republicans first, republicans in congress are supposed to be congressmen first.

republicans in the senate are supposed to be senators first. our obligation first is to our constituents back home, to the united states constitution, not to someone who may or may not hold the same party title at the white house, the president saw that clearly as a candidate. but we all know how that transpired, mr. speaker. the president as president has said this. we can't wait for an increasingly dysfunctional congress to do its job where they won't act -- job. where they won't act, i will. we can't wait for that constitution that was specifically designed to be slow and painful, because every act that we pass here, mr. speaker, takes freedom or power or money from someone in america and gives it to someone else. it was designed to be hard. but as president, president obama says, i can't wait. where congress won't act, i will. i continue to quote, mr.

speaker. different speech. in a cabinet meeting, 2014. but one of the things that i'll be emphasizing in this meeting is the fact that we are not just going to be sitting waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we're providing americans with the kind of help that they need. i've got a pen and i've got a phone, i can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward. mr. speaker, one of my great disappointments in this administration is that president obama had an opportunity to lead america in ways that no other president could have led. he had an opportunity, with all of his personal charisma and popularity, when he was elected, to lead public opinion in ways that no other president could. he was not my choice for president. but when america chose him, merica chose opportunity to do

things that we could not have done otherwise. mr. speaker, all we are in this chamber is a reflection of that public opinion back home. all we are are the voices of our individual districts back home, 435 voices representing millions of constituents back home. the president could have come and changed the minds of this congress, could have come and changed the minds of the people. but instead he said, you know what? i've studied the constitution for 10 years, it's really hard to move congress. it's really hard to move public opinion. and so i'm going to use my phone and my pen and i'm going to do it alone. this isn't just in the white house, mr. speaker. this idea that the people's voice in congress is a nuisance and gets in the way of getting the real business done permeating the entire administration and i quote from e.p.a. administrator mccarthy. i will tell you that i didn't go to washington to sit around

and wait for congressional action. i've never done that before and i don't plan to do it in the future. forbid the thought. forbid the thought you'd be on the federal government payroll, charged with enforcing the laws of the land and you might sit around and wait for congress to pass the laws of the land. forbid the thought. if you've got a phone and you've got a pen, just go ahead and rewrite those laws of the land, mr. speaker. it is dangerous when republicans do that, it is dangerous when democrats do that, it is dangerous when independents do that. we have a constitution as our rulebook for a reason. and that is that changing the law should be hard. taking power from one group and giving it to another should be hard. taking money from one group and giving it to another should be hard. the power's not ours, mr. speaker. the power is the people's. they allow us to administer it for a short period of time and there's a long and difficult process to do that. in the past, mr. speaker, i'm going to focus on some e.p.a.

regulations today. in the past presidents have acknowledged how hard it is to get it done, but they've committed to going out there and getting it done. i'll remind you, mr. speaker, the e.p.a. was created by a republican. -- republican president. there's no one who cares more about clean water and clean air in the great state of georgia than i do. i'm a hard core deep south republican, mr. speaker, and we play outside a lot. our kids are outside a lot. we're drinking a lot of water, we're playing in a lot of grass. we care about a clean environment. so did president richard nixon when he created the e.p.a. and he said this. the reorganizations, which i am proposing, afford both the congress and the executive branch an opportunity to of valuate the adequacy existing programs involved in these consolidations. he says, i look forward to working with the congress in this task. congress, the administration, and the public all share a profound commitment to the rescue of our natural environment. and the preservation of the earth as a place both habitable

by ands who pittable to man -- and hospitable to man. the congress will help us fulfill that commitment. mr. speaker, president nixon had a vision of what he wanted to do for environmental protection in america. and he said, this is a three-part vision. it's going to involve the executive branch, it's going to involve the legislative branch, it's going to involve the american people. i'm going to take this idea out and i'm going to sell it. and we're going to get it passed into law because i'm going to make the american people believe it. we all want the same things, we ant an environment that is inhabitable by man. we want an environment that serves us today and our kids and grandkids tomorrow. he went out there and he sold america on this and we did it together. congress passed it, the president signed it into law. the clean air act amendments of 1990, mr. speaker. you'll remember. democratically controlled

congress. republican, george h.w. bush, in the white house. george h.w. bush says this upon signing the clean air act amendments of 1990. today i'm signing s. 1630, a bill to amend the clean air anth. and i take great pleasure in signing it as a demonstration to the american people of my determination that each and every american shall breathe clean air. passage of this bill is an indication that the congress shares my commitment to a strong clean air act, to a clean environment, and to the achievement of the goals i originally set forth. mr. speaker, if you recall, the clean air act of 1990, i was in college at the time, it was a battle in washington, d.c. it was a battle. again, democrats controlling all of congress, republicans in the white house trying to decide what our obligations were as individuals, what businesses' obblegatheses were, what -- obligations were, what government's obligations would be.

you remember, that was acid rain. that was when they panned the camera around to the monuments throughout the city, where the facial features were being eroded by acid rain. we said, what can we do to get to get -- can we do together to make a difference? it was not someone with a phone and a pen. it became a national movement. it was what all laws are supposed to be, mr. speaker. where we come together, we talk about our differences. we take steps forward where we can. we take time to sort out the steps we can't take today but hope to take tomorrow. the president in signing that legislation said, this represents my vision. this represents my goals. this represents my commitment to clean air. and because the people's representatives in congress passed it, it represents all of the american people. as well, mr. speaker, that's the way it's supposed to be.

and it's hard and it's slow and it's been a long time since we've seen that function effectively. but let me tell you what the impact of that is. the founding fathers were really smart folks. i've never, mr. speaker, been willing to underestimate the wisdom that's in those few founding pages. we have article one in the legislative branch, we have article two in the executive branch. we have article three in the judicial branch. , article e days three is wielding more than its fair share of the power. i will tell you, that's wrong. i would tell you that's wrong. decisions about whales the right law of the land is made one of three ways, mr. speaker. they get made because the president of the united states who was popularily elected signs a bill into law. they get made because the united states congress, which was popularily elected, overrides a veto and implements

a new law. or they get made because nine men and women in black robes across the street at the supreme court who have never been elected sit around and think deeply about it and pronounce what the law of the land will be. mr. speaker, i have great respect for the supreme court. and i believe it is critical, again, in the wisdom of our founding fathers, to have balanced power in that way. but as a citizen, as just a guy from the great state of georgia, just one of 300 million, when i have to choose who writes the law, the president i got a chance to vote for, the congress i got a chance to vote for, or the supreme court which is appointed for life and is never accountable to anyone, i'd be a little bit safer when it's one of the folks who have to be up for re-election every once in a while. it is bad for america when the president with a pen and a

phone goes and implements those things when we as the legislative branch -- things, when we as the legislative branch identify ourselves as republicans and democrats, divide along those lines and allow the courts to sort it out. let me give you an example, mr. speaker. wotus. waters of the u.s. i'd never heard that term until i showed up in this chamber, mr. speaker. but waters of the united states. it's an initiative from the president that is going to re-regulate who controls and keeps tabs on clean water in america. currently if it's navigable water, water that you can sail your boat on, then it's governed by the federal government. if it's any other water, it's governed by state governments. the little creek in the backyard at the park down the flood my house, that's governed by -- down the road from my house, that's governed by the great state of georgia. and they do a great job of it.

it goes through some national park land, national recreation area, but it begins where so much of an opportunity to impact pollution and make a difference in water quality, at the head waters, which is regulated by state governments. jim oberstar, a representative in this chamber, back in 2010, introduced a bill that said, you know what, since the federal government is so effective at everything that they do, let's entrust all clean water decisions to the federal government instead of to the localities that have been doing it so well for so long. . well, he introduced a bill in congress, mr. speaker. this was h.r. 5088. he introduced a bill to expand the definition of waters so the federal government could regulate everything. second step, mr. speaker, is to have that bill considered. well, the bill never was considered in this chamber. it could not gather enough support in this chamber to even be considered in the committee, much less the floor of this

house. well, you've seen it, mr. speaker. i'm just a bill sitting here on capitol hill. it's a long, long way to the capitol city. long, long way while sitting in committee. that's "schoolhouse rock," a tale of how a bill becomes law. if it can't get consideration it expires. well, the president wanted this regulation and he couldn't get the support in congress to pass it, and he didn't want to go out and sell it to the american people so he went to the federal register, mr. speaker. most folks don't know exist. it's a list of all the new regulations the administration propose. every day it's thick. new restrictions on private life in america. april, 2014, the president went out and published this rule. said, this is what i'm going to do. congress hasn't authorized it. it's a dramatic departure for the way america has been governed for the last 200 years but i have a pen and a phone

and i'm going to do it. mr. speaker, if he wanted to come and do it, he should have sold it to congress and sold it to the american people but he didn't. he published it in an obscure publication and a year later he announced all activity of the water in america. not one congressional bill had passed authorizing such an action. in fact, mr. speaker, the opposite had happened. congress saw what was going on. congress saw that the president was way outside of his authority. congress saw that he was way outside of the mandate given to him by the people, and congress passed legislation to block those rules. now, hear that, mr. speaker. the president had legislation introduced to implement the rules. it never even got out of committee because folks opposed it. then, he went around congress, tried to do it on his own. congress passed a new measure

that said, mr. president, that's wrong, don't do it. so congress, it's not that we failed to act, we acted affirmatively and said, mr. president, that's not ok. it passed the house, mr. speaker. it passed the senate, and it went to the president's desk where he vetoed it. understand that. the president is outside of his constitutional role. congress calls him on it. passes it by both houses which is rare these days, as you know. the president, armed with the knowledge that the american people are against him on this issue, vetoes that measure. took him exactly 24 hours to think through that, mr. speaker. hear that. he knew congress had rejected the measure because he couldn't get it out of committee. he implemented it by going around congress, doing it entirely through the administrative branch which we all know from constitution 101 that's not the way laws gets

made. congress passes a law saying, you can't do that, mr. president, that's outside of your bounds. takes him 24 hours to think about that before he stamps it with a veto stamp and sends it away. so what do you do, mr. speaker? what do you do? what do you do when you represent 300 million americans, you have a democratic process here on the floor of the house, everybody's voice is heard, you duly pass measures and the president says, nah, i'm not concerned about that? you go to court. you go to court. mr. speaker, i hate going to court. i hate it. we're the congress of the united states. we're article 1 for a reason. this is where the power was supposed to reside, distributed among all of us across this country. i hate going to the court to solve problems between the white house and the president. we ought to be able to solve those on our own, but we haven't been able to. hadn't been able to start that dialogue. we go to court. here's what the court says about the waters of the u.s.

rule. quoting from their opinion. even so, a review of what has been made available reveals a process that is inexplicable, arbitrary and devoid of a reason to process. they're not talking about what happened in congress, mr. speaker. we did everything by the book. the court is talking about what happened at the white house and at the e.p.a. this administrative process that tried to craft a brand new regulatory regime to reregulate all water in the united states of america. our review reveals a process that is inexplicable, arbitrary and devoid of reason. quoting from another section of the decision, mr. speaker. it appears likely that the e.p.a. has violated its congressional grant of authority in its promulgation of the rule of issue and it appears likely that the e.p.a. failed to comply with the e.p.a. requirements when promulgating the rule. that's the requirements we have some public input on the rule. so not only did we violate our

authority to begin with, but even if the e.p.a. had had authority, the court says, it should have invited more public input, which it did not. reading finally from that decision, mr. speaker. a far broader segment of the public would benefit from the preliminary injunction because it would ensure that federal agencies do not extend their power beyond the expressed delegation from congress. the court said, no. mr. president, no. you do not have this authority. congress makes the law. the answer's no. so just to recap, mr. speaker. a bill was brought in this congress to implement these rules. it never made it out of committee because folks didn't like it. the president didn't unilaterally, and congress responded by passing a bill out of both chambers and sending it to the president's desk saying, don't do that, that's wrong.

the president vetoes it. america sues, and the court says you can't do that. that's wrong. you're exceeding your grant of authority under the law. you would think that after all of that, mr. speaker, the white house might say, i don't know how we got it wrong but we got it wrong, let's go back to the drawing board. not so. white house continues to march on in this direction. mr. speaker, it sounds like inside baseball. it sounds like this is just that standard quibbling republicans, democrats, washington, d.c., dysfunction. that's not so. we're talking about water. we're talking about every spigot in america, mr. speaker. let me tell you what folks said in georgia. this is our attorney general, and he's commenting after the court has prevented the implementation of these waters of the u.s. rules. he says, i am pleased the sixth circuit has granted nationwide stay on the burdensome waters

of the united states rule. under this rule, georgia families, farmers and businesses would be subject to excessive and intrusive federal regulation. as the federal government continues to issue massive and unconstitutional executive directives at an alarming rate, i remain steadfast in my commitment to protect and defend the interest of georgians. mr. speaker, i don't know how it is in your home state. in my home state, the attorney general is elected by the people. he's not named by the governor. this is a popularly elected representative for constitutional issues in the state of georgia talking about washington, d.c., and the white house, talking about illegal rules, unconstitutional executive directions coming out of an alarming rate. our county commissioners, mr. speaker -- again, these are regulations that have traditionally been at the local water.

i tell you, mr. speaker, there is not a man or woman in this city who cares more about the streams outside of my home than i do. there is not a man or woman in this city who cares more about the water in my district than i do. and there's not a man or woman in this city that knows better about how to protect that water than the men and women in local government back home. this is from the association of county commissioners in georgia, mr. speaker. we feel that this rule has great potential to increase counties' risk of litigation and unnecessary delays and confusion and cause disincentive for adequately constructed and maintained drainage ditches. this is where it's come, mr. speaker. in the massive power grab that is the waters of the u.s. rules, trying to grab everything and carry it to washington, d.c. i have county commissioners writing to say this goes even to the drainage ditches in our area, which we're in charge of

keeping clean, which we are in charge of water quality, we're involved in sediment control. it will also divert critical county resources. those being taxpayer resources, from other critical local government services and federally mandated clean water act responsibilities at a time when our budgets are already under great duringess. hear that. there are already federal mandates on counties for a variety of issues. they're handling it all even in tough budget times and they're saying not only are these new regulations going to drain taxpayer resources that would have been going to clean water, but the litigation is going to drain because we're going to sue -- we're not going to allow you to do these unconstitutional things. this is georgia chamber of commerce, mr. speaker. s such, the chamber -- circumvent the role of congress in the regulation and management of the nation's water resources. as well as that of the states. in addition, the chamber believes the proposed rules would violate private property

rights and subject business to yet another layer of uncertainty. more lawsuits, mr. speaker. this is not an issue for courts to solve. the president proposed it. congress rejected it. then, the president tried to implement it, and congress rejected that too. then, the president vetoed that. now, the courts have rejected it too. mr. speaker, if you've got a good idea, get out there and sell it. if you want to change the law of the land, get out there and persuade folks it's a good idea. look what the president did on the affordable care act, mr. speaker. there's not a man or woman in america today who believes there should be lifetime caps on insurance policies. they believe if you're facing the greatest crisis in your life, your insurance company ought to be there. president obama won on that issue. i agree with him on that issue. that law's never going to change, that segment of it. president obama said, you know what, just because you've had cancer doesn't mean you

shouldn't ever be able to buy an insurance policy again. just because you were born with a pre-existing condition doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to buy an insurance policy again. the president was right. republicans in congress passed that for federally regulated plans. some states didn't follow suit. that's now the law of the land. the president went out and led on some issues and changed america's minds on some issues. he did not do that here. he did it with his pen and his phone. it's unconstitutional, and the courts are telling him as much. in is right from my home district, mr. speaker. gwinnett county is the biggest county in the district. i only represent two counties. on behalf of the gwinnett county board of commissioners, i'm writing to encourage continued action by the united states congress to delay and defeat the proposed e.p.a. rule regarding the definition of waters of the united states. the county commissioners who have enough work to do, mr. speaker, are taking up for

congress saying this is way outside of the bounds of what lawmakers ought to be doing from the white house. it ought to be happening in article 1. do what you can. quoting from that same county commissioner, mr. speaker. chairwoman of our county in gwinnett -- this would have the potential to increase costs and cause delays in permitting and operation of needed public works project. in gwinnett county, 2,700 miles of roads and 684 miles of ditches within the highway right of way would be impacted by this proposed definition, if adopted, as would 1,400 miles of streams and 1,400 miles of drainage ditches. now, hear that, mr. speaker. i guess i kind of glossed over that. i called this the largest power grab that we've seen in water rights in american history, but i haven't really tried to enumerate it. one county in the state of georgia -- we got a lot of counties, mr. speaker.

i believe the second most counties in the united states of america. so our counties are not that big. one county, 2,700 miles of roads going under federal regulation. 684 miles of ditches in those right of ways going under federal regulation. 1,400 miles of streams going under new federal regulation and 1,400 miles of additional drainage ditches going under federal regulation in one county. ne county. and add insult to injury, mr. speaker. the government accountability office, the auditor of the united states government, had this to say in december of last year. the environmental protection agency violated publicity or propaganda in anti-lobbying rovisions contained in appropriations acts with its use of certain social media

platforms in association with its waters of the united states rulemaking. mr. speaker, hear that. i'm begging the administration to go out there and sell the american people before they act as is supposed to be done. the government accountability office is chastising the administration because instead of going out and selling it, they're illegally lobbying for it after the fact. we couldn't persuade anybody about it ahead of time. we didn't bother to involve folks ahead of time. we're going to go out after the fact illegally and try to change everybody's mind. quoting again from that same report. the e.p.a. engaged in covert propaganda when the agency did not identify e.p.a.'s role as the creator of the thunderclap message to the target audience. this is one particular campaign that the government accountability office is looking at. mr. speaker, we've got to demand better. president obama when he was senator obama demanded better

of the bush administration. he was right to do so. i'm betting -- demanding better of the obama administration, we are right to do so. whoever the next president is, him or her, we have to ask more of them, the constitution was crafted with three branches of government for a reason. one branch to create the laws, that's us. one branch to enforce the laws, that's the president. and one branch to adjudicate the differences. i'll come back to the courts, mr. speaker. i've been talking about waters of the u.s. that's just one of dozens of examples of administration overreach. this headline, mr. speaker, supreme court deals blow to obama's effort to regulate coal emissions. coal emissions. this is the war on coal that you hear so much about. mr. speaker, the president has not come to congress to sell congress on doing away with our number one natural energy resource. the president has not gone to the american people to sell the american people on doing away with the number one energy

resource in america. in fact, if you go into coal country, mr. speaker, every single democrat at the federal level has been defeated. not because they weren't doing a good job, they may well have been, but because their president was declaring a war on coal and hardworking americans who work in the coal industry said, why are you picking on me? if you want clean air, let's pass clean air regulations. this ends up in the supreme court. former e.p.a. assistant administrator says this. it's the first time the supreme court has actually stayed a regulation. this is happening right now. happening right now, mr. speaker. i've got it on the front page of yesterday's national journal, one of those washington, d.c., dailies that tracks federal opportunities and regulations. headline reads, obama's second term agenda hits a roadblock. the supreme court. think about that, mr. speaker.

the headline, the generally accepted conventional wisdom is the president's agenda hits a roadblock because the supreme court says no. mr. speaker, the president's agenda hit a roadblock when he decided not to sell it to congress, not to sell it to his constituents, but to go around us both and do it through administrative action. the first time in american history that the supreme court has stayed a regulation so egregious as this action. i go on from "the new york times," mr. speaker. just this week. but the supreme court's willingness to issue a stay while the case proceeds was an early hint that this program could face a skeptical reception from the justices. with the court's four liberal members dissenting, a 5-4 decision was unprecedented. the supreme court has never before granted a request to halt a regulation before review by a federal appeals court. it's a stunning development.

a harvrd law professor -- a harvard law professor said in an email. a stunning development. what's stunning, mr. speaker, is around and around and around the president goes, around this body. republicans and democrats, it's not a partisan issue, this is a constitutional issue of whether or not we should be concerned, why it is that the courts are solving the issues. i'll quote from lawrence tribe, harvard law professor. in fact, he was president obama's constitutional law professor. when the president was in law school. professor tribe says this, to justify the clean power plan, that's this power plan that is implementing the coal regulations that the supreme court just put a stay on this week, to justify the clean power plan, the e.p.a. has brazenly rewritten the history of an obscure section of the 1970 clean air act. frustration with congressional

inaction cannot justify throwing the constitution overboard to rescue this lawless e.p.a. proposal. mr. speaker, we're supposed to disagree on things. you don't have to go far outside of my congressional district, hank johnson represents the south side of the county, just beyond me, john lewis just beyond that. we disagree on all sorts of things. i admire them. i respect them. we work together on issues. it's not surprising that we disagree. what's surprising and in fact alarming is that the american people's thirst for results has become such that presidents think they can just skip the process, that the ends are going to justify the means. president obama's law school professor, an undisputed congressional scholar, not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, frustration with congressional inaction cannot justify throwing the constitution overboard to

rescue this lawless e.p.a. proposal. i need folks to understand, mr. speaker, that this is not republican-democrat. this is article 1, article 2. we talked about waters of the u.s. we talked about the war on coal. what about guantanamo bay, mr. speaker? what about the detention facility in guantanamo bay? u.s. attorney general lynch in november of last year, this is not old news, this is right now, with respect to individuals being transferred to the united states, the law currently does not allow for that. the attorney general of the united states, president obama's attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer of the land, second only to the president, says, the law will not allow you to transfer these individuals to the united states. secretary of defense ash carter just last month, there are people in gitmo who are so

dangerous we cannot transfer them to the custody of another government, no matter how much we trust that government. we need to find another place and it would have to be in the united states. so i've made a proposal for the president, and he's indicated that he's going to submit that to congress -- hear that. secretary of defense, mr. speaker, says the guys in guantanamo are so dangerous we cannot trust any other government on the planet with them. and so if we are to close guantanamo, as the president has desired for eight years, we must bring those folks back to the u.s., it's the only way. he's going to have to submit that proposal to congress. the secretary of defense says. why is that? because it's against the law to establish another detention facility, so therefore, to get the support of congress. it's against the law. so we've got the secretary of defense saying, these guys are

really dangerous, which would question why we want to bring them to the united states to begin with. but you can't transfer them here because it's against the law. we've got loretta lynch, attorney general, saying, you can't bring them here because it's against the law, but i challenge anyone in this chamber to do a news search, yahoo! search, google search, however it is you get your news, look in the last 14 days and see if you've seen another statement from the president saying he's going to bring those folks here. there's no proposal on capitol hill to do that. there's no effort from the white house on capitol hill to get that done. in fact, the opposite is true. time after time after time this body, the senate, president signed it into law, says, you cannot bring these folks back to america, they are too dangerous. secretary of defense agrees, u.s. attorney general loretta lynch agrees. and yet we go down this road again. visa waiver reform, mr. speaker. i was about to dismiss that. yet another issue. we passed a bill that said, listen, if you've been

traveling to some of these countries in the middle east, where terrorism is running rampant today, you're not going to get a free pass into america. we're going to want to look at your background before we tell you to come on in. that seems fair. if you're from one of these countries and you've been traveling through these countries where terrorism is running rampant, where there's case after case after case of terrorists leaving those countries and performing deadly acts around the globe, before we just let you in, which is what the visa waiver program is, it says, come on in, we're not going to do a background check on you, you're from england, you're from france, you're from germany, we trust you, come right on in, we say, if you've been traveling to sites where the terrorist training camps are, we're going to want to give you a little further scrutiny. congress passed this. the house passed it. the senate passed it. the president signed it into law. and he turned around the very next day and said, well, but i'm not going to enforce that because i promised the iranians in my nuclear deal that i

wouldn't enforce those kinds of rules against iranians. well, you can't pick and choose. veto the bill if you don't like it. sign the bill if you do like the bill. you can't pick and choose. i quote from senator ron johnson, chairman of the homeland security on the senate side. he says, congress has every right to expect full compliance with these new provisions. as the lead sponsor of the visa waiver program improvement and terrorist travel prevention act of 2015, i can attest that congress considered and rejected expanding the waiver authority in the way the president proposes. because these groups of travelers would be hard to verify and any waivers granted would be easy to exploit. this isn't eight years ago, this isn't five years ago, this isn't three years ago, this is happening right now. the president signed language into law in december. signed language into law in november, in october, in september.

signed language into law last year and said, this is the way it's going to be. and has shown up this year and said, i didn't mean it. i'm going to do it differently. you have the lead senate sponsor, the chairman of the homeland security committee, saying, no, we considered that, we specifically didn't give you that waiver authority, don't go do -- don't go down that road. mr. speaker, i've got a chart up here you can't -- up here, you can't see it. it says 9-0. it's another supreme court decision against the administration saying, you've gone outside of your congressionally delegated authority, you can't do that. you see a lot of 5-4 decisions out of the supreme court, mr. speaker. you rarely see a 9-0 decision. these are justices appointed by presidents of all political stripes, including justices appointed by president obama. and they looked at what the president did in the case where he declared that congress was in recess so he could put people in executive positions without having to have

congress' approval. and they said, nonsense. nonsense. you can't do that. it's outrageous, 9-0 the court rejected that. the supreme court rejected that. . speaker, i don't pick on this issue because it's an example of good news. i pick on it because it's an example of bad news. the courts said the president seizing aching and congressional power illegitimately. unconstitutional actions. but when i go to democrats in the senate during the time period this was going on, mr. speaker, i get this. senator from iowa, by appointing these nominees, the president has acted responsibly in order to ensure that workers and businesses across this country who rely on the stable functioning of this important agency would not be caught in the crossfire of republicans' misguided ideological battle. he has a good reason. he's got a good reason for

defending the president. partisan politics have created gridlock on capitol hill, mr. speaker. so i support the president ignoring the constitution, seizing authority that's granted only to the senate, and doing what he wants to do with it. this is a united states senator choosing to be a democrat first and defending article 1 second. i'm not picking on the senator. that happens all the time in this place, mr. speaker. when did that happen? when did it become more important to defend your president than to defend the constitution? when did it become more important to be a good republican than to be a good congressman? i argue we can still turn the tide on that, mr. speaker. representative george miller from california, ranking member of the education and work force committee, which had jurisdiction over these issues in the house. he said this, president obama's recess appointments will guarantee both employers and employees will have a place to go to get their rights under the law protected and enforced.

well, that would be true except they were unconstitutionally appointed and thus all of the decisions they rendered are now moot. no one's defending article 1. folks are defending their president instead. senator harry reid. since president obama took office, senate republicans have done everything possible to deny qualified nominees from receiving a fair up or down vote. president obama did the right thing when he made these appointments on behalf of merican workers. 9-0, mr. speaker. 9-0 the supreme court said, no, you did not do the right thing, mr. president. in fact, you did exactly the wrong thing. in fact, it is unconstitutional what you did. you do not have the power to act in this way. and democrat after democrat after democrat is defending him. mr. speaker, if i put up these same charts from the bush administration, i would have democrats saying the bush administration overstepped its

bounds and republican after republican after republican would be defending them. it's got to stop. it may be too late for this administration, mr. speaker. the lines in the sand may have already been dug so deep that we won't be able to cross them. but here in this presidential primary season, we've got to ask of our presidential candidates, what are you first? are you your own leader first? are you a republican or a democrat first? or are you the leader of the free world under the restrictions of article 2 first? are you going to use your pen are you going to use your pen and phone or are you going to sell your boss on the idea, your boss being 300 million americans and bring ourselves together as a nation to do these things one by one. it's got to stop, mr. speaker, that we defend actions based on

which party is involved in it or we criticize actions depending on which party is involved. there is one rule book for this country. it's not the policy decision of the republican national committee or the democrat national committee. the one rule book in this country is the united states constitution that says congress writes the law and the president enforces it. we've got to expect more of our presidents, not about the results they get but by the leadership they provide, not the leadership to go around the law, but the leadership to change people's minds and then change the law. we have so much opportunity, mr. speaker. we have so much opportunity, the men and women i have gotten to know, they would rather lose their seat tomorrow, who cares about the election, they want to make a difference for the country.

gridlock is the natural state of the constitutional government that our founding fathers created. we have to work it, not around it. and we have to work with the american people changing hearts and minds, not going around the american people and having to rely on the supreme court to fix those mistakes. i thank you for the time and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. to lerk: h.r. 757, an act improve the enforcement of sanctions against the government of north korea and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a privileged concurrent resolution. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 31, resolved, that when the senate recesses or adjourns on any day from

thursday february 11, 2016 through saturday february, 20, 2016, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or its designee, it stands recessed or adjourned until 12 noon, monday, february 22, 2016 or such other time on that day as may be specified by the majority leader and the motion to recess or adjourn or the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this resolution and whichever occurs first. and when the house adjourns on friday, february 12, 2016 through february 16, 2016 on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by the majority leader it stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on tuesday, february 23, 2016 or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 3 of this

concurrent resolution whichever occurs first. section 2-a the majority leader of the senate after concurrence with the minority leader of the senate shall reappear see himble at such place and time. b, after reassembling pursuant to subsection a, when the senate adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection by the majority leader, the senate shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution. section 3-a, the speaker or the designee after consultation of the minimum right leader of the house shall reassemble at such place and time the public interest shall warrant it. b, after reassembling to subsection a when the house adjourns on a motion by the majority leader, the house shall

stand adjourned pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognizes, my friend, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. graves, for 30 minutes. mr. graves: thank you, mr. speaker, it's nice to see you up in the chair. appreciate that. mr. speaker, earlier this week, the president submitted a budget request to the congress. that budget request increases spending by approximately $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years. t raises taxes by 3.4 trillion over the next 10 years. i'll say it again, it increases spending by $2.5 trillion and

raises taxes by $3.4 trillion over the next 10 years. this budget, like every other budget that has been submitted by this white house does not ever come into balance. it never comes into balance. it stays in the red. in fact, under the budget we will see a 13% structural shortfall in funding. the deficit would increase in is fiscal year to $616 billion. that's up from approximately $438 billion last year. either number is unacceptable. what the trajectory we are on by 2022, just the interest on the debt, just the interest, not the principal, the interest will result in us spending more money on paying that interest payment than we'll spend on all of our defense spending in a year. i'll say it again. we will spend more money just

paying the interest payment on the debt, not dropping the principal, then we will spend on the defense budget with the trajectory we are on increasing this nation's debt. the debt is going to more than double than at the time the president took office and double y the time he leaves office. currently, it exceeds $18 trillion. $18 trillion is our debt today. to break that down, that's approximately $155,000 per taxpayer. this isn't monopoly money but real repercussions. earlier this week i was able to host a seventh grade class from my district, these are the folks that are going to pay for it. that generation and their children and their grandchildren.

some point this debt is going to be due. the bill is going to have to be paid and you can see we are going off this cliff of spending to where our interest payments in the short six years are projected to exceed all we are spending in a defense budget. this budget adds $6 trillion in debt over the next 10 years. i would like to break it down a little bit in terms of what some of the tax increases are and what the implications are. the president has taken a lot of credit over the last few years over job growth. he has talked a lot about the increases in jobs that have occurred in his administration. you look at numbers where we have had job growth is in the energy sector. the one place we have seen this extraordinary job growth over the last several years. however, however, just over the last year, we have lost approximately 10,000 jobs in the

energy industry in louisiana. by some estimates, that is 20% of our oil and gas work force. 10,000 jobs in the last year tied back to our energy sector. there was a study that said that at current prices that oil and gas producers in the united states and canada are losing pproximately $350 million, every single day. i'm going to put this in perspective and lost 10,000 jobs in louisiana and bleeding of energy jobs across this nation. nd energy producers are losing $350 million every single day. so the white house's solution in their budget is to impose more taxes. it makes zero sense. those of you who are listening. it's not going to make sense. people are losing money. hey, let's put that last nail in

the coffin and increase taxes. this budget proposes to increase taxes by $10 barrel -- a barrel. that is in excess of 30%. approaching a 40% tax, approaching a 40% tax in an industry that is bleeding jobs. it is completely nonsensical and obviously not well thought out. the study i referenced earlier projects that by 2017, approximately one-third of the companies involved in oil and gas exploration and production activities will go bankrupt. it's killing american jobs and i want to be clear. it's not going to decrease our demand on oil and gas as we have seen prices as low as they are. you are seeing more people buying oil and gas because of the low prices but we will kill our domestic industry and become more reliant on foreign sources.

i'll say it again. it is nonsensical. further, adding insult to injury to insult, this administration is moving forward on this well controlled rule which they have hidden from industry and congress and refused to meet with committees and delegations about what they are trying to do, yet they thought it appropriate to leak it to the "wall street journal" this week. they can't talk to the people that exercise oversight but can talk to the newspapers. where their comments to the newspapers continue to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how our offshore energy works. a study that was just released indicates we could see a 35% reduction in domestic energy production in the offshore as a result of this well control rule. mr. speaker, i want to be clear. like everyone, i support safe energy production in the united states. and what happened in 2010 with

the disaster and the loss of those lives was an absolute travesty. but as the judge said in that case, it was gross negligence and woilful misconduct. the judge didn't say that the department of interior was at fault. he said the operators were at fault and result of multiple, ultiple mistakes that in aggregate, grossly negligent and showed willful miss conduct. since the spill, the department of interior is taking steps to ensure safety. yes, this well control rule is going to result in a 35% reduction and i believe will actually result in decreased safety because of the fundamental misunderstanding of these regulators of the industry they are attempting to regulate. if they are in an ivory tower

and further attempting to kill this industry. here's the irony. mr. speaker, the president indicated that the effort to assign this $10 a barrel tax is tied back to his environmental agenda, tied back to his efforts to ensure that we're good environmental stewards, which to e clear, mr. speaker, i am a strong advocate of the environment and ensuring that we balance environmental viability with our economic development efforts. but in this case, by taking these steps and reducing our domestic production of energy particularly on the offshore, you are reducing the funds that are available for environmental restoration, environmental initiatives because it's going o result in a 35% reduction in

offshore energy production according to the mackenzie study. if that's true, you are go to result in less money for the u.s. government. the offshore energy, the far majority of the offshore energy production happens off the shores of texas, of louisiana, of mississippi and of alabama. mr. speaker, i believe that's your home state, one of those. nd so under we dedicate those collars back -- those dollars become to

preventing floods. this does not include money through corps of engineers for projects like the gulf project. it doesn't include projects to prevent repetitive flooding. it doesn't fulfill the resident's commitment. -- that weensure the don't see the flooding in st. john's parish and other places. he fails to honor his commitment by zeroing out funding for that important project. again, adding insult to injury to insult to injury to insult, by taking away funds in his budget request, attempting to repeal these offshore energy revenue sharing dollars that in the state of louisiana are committed to ecosystem restoration and community resilience efforts to prevent flood waters to save fema money

to prevent disasters and prevent economic disruption, to prevent disrupting our families and businesses in south louisiana. mr. speaker, i just want to this budgeting that is entirely nonsensical. it talks about reducing spending and saving money but does the opposite. it talk about environmental initiatives yet all it proposes to do is reduce funds available for environmental purposes and in one case swaps the louisiana money or attempts to take the louisiana money, take the money from the gulf states and send it up to alaska for a climate initiative on coastal resiliency. one last note on that, mr. speaker. i've been up to the communities in coastal alaska. i've been up there, nome and barro and dead horse, i've been to these communities and they

deserve help. but, mr. speaker, to simply trade, or to rob peter to pay paul, to rob the gulf, to set up a program in alaska, it's mind boggling. mr. president, mr. speaker, they all deserve help. they all deserve help and to simply take money from one area and send it to another one that doesn't fix the problem. this budget from a fiscal perspective is fatally flawed policy. it's going to put extraordinary financial burden on future generations. from an environmental perspective, it's nonsensical and takes money away from environmental restoration and environmental initiatives and community resilience. it's going to result in increasing fema disaster spending by leaving these communities vulnerable, by failing to address these hazards. i urge, mr. speaker, that as we

move forward, we move forward with commonsense reforms to reduce spending, to bring the debt under control, to begin reducing our national debt. and to make sure that we're spending money in places where it makes sense, to fulfill commitments to the people in st. john and st. charles parishes, to ensure that our communities and economy are more resilient. and not to continue mortgaging our future. and continue allowing our environment to degrade as it is in coastal louisiana. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognizes -- recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes.

mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from louisiana, my neighbor, wonderful points being made. also wanted to call attention, mr. speaker, today to the 43rd nniversary of the release from prisonment of american p.o.w.'s from north vietnam, among whom is our friend and hero here in the house, sam johnson. and so it was nice of staff to have a little reception for congressman johnson and it is

important to remember such things and try to learn from our mistakes. once again, in the last couple of weeks, i've heard references to mistakes of the past like the lesson we should have learned from vietnam and then they get the lesson all wrong. we really didn't allow our military in vietnam to win the war in vietnam. our pilots, our military operations, they could have won that war, had they been allowed to do so. and the best indication of that that sam even years johnson spent in just the most horrendousonditions, rture, joined by other

american heroes like john mccain, who was three years there at the hanoi hilton where sam johnson was, and i know he was shot down five years before the release but it was only the last three years that he was placed in confinement there with, i believe, 10 others in the worst of the worst facilities, so bad that even today after they cleaned up some of the torture chambers and tried to tress them up, they still won't let americans go into the original hanoi hilton here they held 11, including sam johnson, in the most horrid of conditions. ut the chronology basically in a nutshell, nixon promised that he would -- if he was re-elected

he would get us out of vietnam. so after re-election, they start the paris peace talks and i realize this is a gross generalization, start the paris peace talks, the north vietnamese storm out. nixon orders carpet bombing of sites in north vietnam that they had never been allowed to bomb before, including big areas in hanoi itself. and sam is relate -- has related personally that, you know, when they first heard the first bomb drop they thought, wow, one might fall here and then they re absolutely overjoyed -- overjoyed that finally, their country, the united states of america, was finally bringing the war to the north vietnamese leaders. they had not done that. and so there was missive -- massive bombing for two weeks.

after two two week, tremendous bomb, then the leaders came rushing back to the peace tables, let's work this out. they got a peace accord agreed to, they agreed to provide all the name, locations of americans who were killed in action or missing in action, provide all the p.o.w.'s, apparently american officials knew pretty quickly they didn't give us everybody and that is another dark chapter in our history. but they agreed to release the p.o.w.'s and as sam johnson and others were being released from the hanoi hilton, said probably the cruelest of the officers there was laughing and smirking at the americans as they were allowed to leave and go to a bus , and basically said, you stupid americans, if you had just

bombed us for one more week, we would have had to surrender unconditionally. yes, that's right. the lesson of vietnam should have been that we should never, ever put our military in harm's way without giving them all of the equipment anded or nants they need to -- and ordinants they need to win and the order to win and if we're not willing to give them rules of engagement that allow them to win, they should not be sent. and yet since this administration has been in office, there have been three to four times more american military lives lost, i'm told by many in the military, because of the rules of engagement, because of where they are placed without being able to properly defend themselves, that under commander

in chief obama, three to four times more military members, american military members have given their lives the last full measure of devotion, than were lost during the seven and a quarter years in which the war in afghanistan raged at its highest under command for the chief bush. the difference is, you have one commander in chief that gave and aore authority to win second, a later commander in chief, that tied their hands ehind their backs. so. brings taos where we are today. 4 years after sam johnson and other american p.o.w.'s were released from north vietnam. the real lesson of vietnam still hasn't been learned because

we've still got american military members being killed abroad in afghanistan without giving them the rules of engagement to protect themselves. and if that were the end of the story that would be bad enough. but it's even worse when our military members have been ubjected to the example, examples, of having american sent ry members punished, to prison, if they dared to put the safety and lives of their as the first consideration of their actions and their orders. so we have a lieutenant in 11

when an afghan on a motorcycle refused to honor the signs, the orders to stop, refused to stop or even slow down when when shots were fired in his direction, and so you have to give some credit to this administration and the military leaders and the orders that make their way from the top down and as to es of engagement why just in recent weeks we have lost military members when someone on a motorcycle rode up and exploded themselves. they knew. our american military that died in that suicide motorcycle bombing, they knew what had happened to the lieutenant. all of our people in afghanistan know what happened when this

administration makes an example out of an officer who dares to put the safety of his own people upper most in his mind. so it's a sad time in america. we our allies notice that if will not even take the life the treasure of our own american military more seriously, then how can they possibly put their faith in us that we will keep our word and protect them? because they've seen what happened in ukraine. didn't really lift a finger to help the ukrainians against the russian aggression. and in fact, when president bush

, after russian aggression against georgia, president bush t some sanctions in place, relations got more chilled between the united states and russia because of the egregious, unfair actions of russia in georgia, the first thing this president did was send hillary clinton over with a plastic red button and they put the wrong interpretation on it they meant to say a reset button and they got the wrong language on there. but the message was very clear to the russians, ah, president bush and hillary clinton, they don't care if we violate their allies. they don't care if we invade their friends. they don't care, they want a reset button and basically have apologized for getting upset

that we in russia invaded georgia. and so hillary clinton and president obama, they're fine with us invaded other places. what were they supposed to think that this administration would do when they invaded ukraine? they guessed right. this administration wouldn't really do anything about it. mr. speaker, i forgot, this administration did do something in t the russian aggression fact, the president delivered it and didn't know the microphone was picking him up, saying i will have a lot more flexibility after the election. they got the message. we can pretty much abuse, invade, whatever we care to do. it is outrageous what's happened

to american -- america's reputation abroad. so 3rd anniversary, we salute sam johnson and all the p.o.w.'s that were released today from north vietnam. and i wish we had learned the lesson and the horrors that they experienced. and in fact, there's an article bynbiefski released human rights voices thrfment is a scam imagining tracks -- traction at the united nationses . it's called violent extremism. given the u.n.'s long history

being unable to define terrorism and an american president jokes on the words, pledges to combat violent extremism have become all the rage. term ns out that the term needs to be deconstructed. in 1991, the organization of islamic cooperation and let me o.i.c., the he organization of islamic cooperation has all of the islamic nations except the united states include in it and they also include the palestinians that are in the nation of israel and i always get confusioned whether the o.i.c. has 50 states and we have

in the united states 57 states or whether the o.i.c. has 57 states and we have 50. so i share that with our president when he was running for the presidency as he got confused u.s. has 57 states -- no, that's the o.i.c. and the united states has 50. it's confusing, but the o.i.c. dem 1999, azopted an anti-terrorism treaty stating that quote, armed struggle against foreign aggression and col nationalism aimed at elf-determination shall not be considered a terrorist crime unquote. that means it is open season on all israelis as well as americans and europeans who get in the way. each of the 56 islamic states,

actually, the o.i.c. is 57, and what the u.n. labels the state of palestine is a party to this treaty. september 11 terror attacks launched a growth industry in u.n. counterterrorism chit chat. year after year islamic states have prevented the adoption of a u.n. cooperation convention against terrorism by refusing to abandon their claim that certain targets are exempt. in 2001, the u.n. security council created the counterterrorism committee, but it is unable to name a state sponsor of terrorism. a m 2002 to 2003, syria, was member. in 2005, the u.n. commission on human rights once chaired by

colonel gaddafi's libya created the u.n. expert on quote, the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, unquote, as if countering terror is not about protecting human rights. n 2006, the general assembly adopted a counterterrorism strategy that manages to cast terrorists as victims. pillar number one starts by worrying about conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism, unquote. youth unemployment for instance purportedly results in the quote, subsequent sense of victimization that propels extremism and the recruitment of terrorists, unquote. in 2011, the u.n. established the counterterrorism center at

the initiative of saudi arabia. the saudis through $100 million at the venture and became chair charities and exercises around the world are left out of the events on investigating and prosecuting terror financing. integral to the best defense to a good offense routine is the constant unsubstantiated allege of a pandemic. for the first decade of the 21st phobia was e islama hurled on the definition -- defamation of real godge. defamation meant the freedom of human beings should be trumped by the rights of religion. in 2009, defamation was repackaged by the general

assembly as human rights and cultural diversity. the 100 countries vote against western states and demand the freedoms of human beings be trumped by cultural diversity and that's cultural diversity in iran's style. u.n. ember, 2015, the praised tehran's center for human rights, the brain child of former iranian president and and known human rights islamic states have staged two u.n. meetings and inclusive societies, unquote. xenophobia. tering

moon couldn't mention anti-semitism on the anniversary of the liberation of auschwitz without connecting it to anti-muslim bigotry. e drum beat skips right over the anti-semitism that is endemocratic and officially sanctioned in islamic states. this is the which moon has now manufactured a plan of action against violent extremism. they are meeting on february 12, 2016 to push the plan forward. after mention of al qaeda, boko haram and isis, it does not arise in a vacuum. perceived injustice become

attract i have. it is critical that in responding to this threat that ates be stopped from overreacting. topping conditions conducive to violent extremism is lack of socioeconomic opportunities, which just shows the ignorance in the u.n. in pop debating such outright nd the the intentional misleading of those who would read the report. lack of socioeconomic opportunities is not what caused e of the wealthier islamists

to put together and carry out a plan of attacking the world trade centers and the pentagon and apparently this capitol. he was wealthy. so are many of those who are funding terrorism. islamics out of radical beliefs. and nobody should have to ever say we know all muslims don't believe this. should go without saying. we know that. t for those that do, it is idiocy to claim that islam has nothing to do with the

radical islamic terrorism that is occurring. when you have one of the most world renowned experts on islam who has studied his whole life n the koran, the holy koran, the pillars of islam and even has his phd we are told in islamic studies from the university of baghdad -- i forgot to mention, he is the head of isis. the head of the islamic state is one of the world's foremost experts on islam and he says the islamic state is exactly what islam is all about. well, i know when i was a judge ople had to put on evidence,

educational background, study in an area so that i as the judge, could determine whether that man or woman were actually an expert in the field. i would say the head of isis with his educational background and research and study certainly is far more expert on islam than our president or valerie jarrett or anybody else. the article says here we go, the killers are allegedly driven by annoying insistence on fighting back which the plan astonishingly calls the armed conflict. as per usual in u.n. negotiations, the obama administration has jumped on board while states are holding out for greater elaboration of their grievances and nothing to

do with islam or religion clauses. the u.n.'s idea of a win-win is a global partnership to confront this men ace that allows state to define violent extremism any way they want. quote, this plan of action pursues a practical approach to address questions of definition, unquote. u.n. con artists would present refusing to identify a problem as the practical way to solve it. the latest palestinian terror wave began by pumping bullets into a young mom and dad in front of their little kids for the crime of being jews living -claimed hing on arab nd and u.n. terminology --

were quote extremist settlers. to all of you extremist lovers of liberty, beware the violence in u.n. clothing and the morally commanders in chief bringing up the rear. well written. we have to wake up. .ad another bombing we have more violence. we hear from isis leaders that they have been able to get -- some of their best warriors into the united states, into europe posing as refugees. we have the head of the f.b.i. that warns all of us in the house, all of us in the senate and says we have cases regarding the islamic state in every state

in the union. and still, we let the administration get away with turning a blind eye toward the real problem and saying we need to welcome more and more refugees in that we're told by the people who are in charge of the vetting, we'll vet them, but we have no information really to vet them with. so sure. there are going to be some terrorists come in. . we have an obligation in this house and those senators at the other end of the hall and wir to provide for the common defense. we're supposed to provide that defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic. and for those who don't know the constitution well enough, there is no right by someone illegally in the united states to have a hearing before an article 3

federal district court. in fact, there is no district court mentioned in article 3. the only court mentioned is the supreme court. as my old constitutional law professor said, there's only one court in the country that owes its exestence -- its existence to the u.s. constitution. every other federal court, every other tribunal, magistrate, in the country owes its existence, that's a federal entity, owes its existence to the united states congress. we have the right to create them, we have the right to remove them. our own military do not have a right to a united states district court. why? because the constitution says congress has the full authority to create disciplinary systems for the military. that's why the ucmj, uniform

code of military justice, was created system of why in the world should we have people in this administration advocating for people illegally in this country? people illegally in this country hat want to do damage to america, advocate that they have a right to a u.s. district court that our own military heroes don't have a right to. the answer is, they don't have that right. t all. there's a notice, female suicide bomber killed 58 in a refugee camp. having been there, having wept with family member who was lost ids, had kids kidnapped, held, their little girls raped repeatedly, for months now, and the best this administration does is start a little social

media campaign, bring back our girls. are you kidding me? give nigeria all the intel they need to wipe out boko haram. let them to it. the taliban was totally defeated between october of 2001 and february of 2002 without one single american life lost. we had embedded military in afghanistan, no lives lost, and the taliban was totally rallied by -- routed by february. then we did something that wasn't very smart. we began basically an occupation of afghanistan. hadn't worked well. ere's an article -- c.i.a. director says ice islamic state group has used, can make chemical weapons. it quotes brennan on cbs news, saying 60 minutes as

the c.i.a. believes the ice group has the ability to make small amounts of mustard and chlorine gas for weapons. quote, there are reports that isis has access to chemical precursors and munitions they can use. mr. speaker, we need to have learned our lesson and we haven't. this administration doesn't stand up, more lives will be needlessly lost. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: i would respond to the speaker from texas by saying pursuant to senate con surnt resolution 31, 114th congress, i move that the house do now hereby adjourn and note that the speaker from texas has done

pretty good. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. pursuant to senate concurrent resolution 31, 114th congress, the house stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on tuesday, february may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, for three years the foreign affairs committee that i chair has worked with great determination o build support for this north

korea sanctions legislation. i want to thank my democratic colleagues, and i especially want to thank our ranking member, mr. eliot engel of new ork, for his support on this legislation. i want to thank senator corker and garner for their support in the senate and for the strong additions, particularly on human rights and on cyberattacks by the brutal and hostile north korean regime. today, congress, democrats and republicans, house and senate, unite to put this north korea sanctions legislation on the president's desk. last month this bill passed the house with 418 votes, and this 96-0. passed the senate mr. speaker, these overwhelming votes reflect bipartisan frustration with our north korea policy, a policy of strategic patience that isn't

working. today, congress unites to say it's time for a new approach. mr. speaker, last month north korea conducted its fourth known nuclear test, and last weekend it concluded a long range missile test. and on tuesday, our director of tional intelligence, james clapper, testified that north korea has restarted a plutonium reactor and expanded production and expanded that production of weapons grade nuclear fuel. the threat to the united states and our allies is real. the tyrannical regime of kim jong un has developed increasingly destructive weapons. its miniaturized nuclear warheads that fits on the most relyable missiles. we cannot stand by any longer. the legislation we consider today, this h.r. 757, is the

most comprehensive north korea sanctions legislation to come before this body. my bill uses targeted financial and economic pressure to isolated kim jong un and his top officials from the assets they maintain in foreign banks and from the hard currency that sustains their rule. these assets are gained in part from illicit activities on the part of north korea, like counterfeiting u.s. currency and selling weapons around the world. and they are used to advance the north korean nuclear program. luxurious ay for the lifestyles of the ruling elites and the continued oppression of the north korean people by their police state. in 2005, the treasury department black listed a small bank in macau called banco

delta asia, which not only froze north korea's money in the bank but also scared away other financial institutions from dealing with the government in north korea for fear they, too, would be black-listed. unfortunately, this effective policy was shelfed for ill-fated negotiations. but this can get us back to a winning strategy. equally important to the strong sanctions in this bill are its critical human rights provisions. north korea operates a brutal system of gulags that hold as many as 120,000 men, women and children. and if a north korean is suspected of any kind of dissented opinion, even telling a joke about the regime, his entire family, for three generations, is punished.

north korea is a human rights house of horrors. two years ago, the u.n. commission of inquiry released the most comprehensive report on north korea to date, and their finding was that the kim jong un regime and the whole family regime has for decades pursued policies involving crimes -- and this is the words of the united nations' report -- crimes that shock the conscience of humanity. and this amended version requires the administration to develop a strategy to promote north korean human rights, including a list of countries that use north korean slave labor. the implementation of this bill subsidy sever a key for their weapons of mass

destruction program for only when the north korean leadership realizes that its criminal activities are untenable, the prospects of peace and prosperity in northeast asia improves. i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this measure, and yumeds. -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: i'm proud to be the lead democratic co-sponsor and i'm glad we're almost to the finish line. just over a month ago we passed this bill and sent it to the senate. the senate acted quickly to make minor adjustments, and today we'll pass this bipartisan legislation and send it to the president's desk. this process is a great example of what we can accomplish when we work in a bipartisan way to advance american security. and as i said many times

before, i'm proud of the members on both sides of the aisle on the foreign affairs committee because we have worked in a bipartisan manner. i would caution all members about leveling political charges when it comes to north korea. i'm reminded of the old adage that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. we all know north korea is a problem, but let's not kid ourselves. this problem has grown under many administrations, both parties, and congresses of both parties, so when we talk about how we got here, we need to really focus in a bipartisan manner. that's what we're trying to do, because the regime is dangerous. nuclear program threatens regional stability and global security. it worries me to think what north korea's leaders plan to do with their nuclear arsenal or who they might be willing to

sell nuclear material to. and while it's bad enough on its own, north korea's nuclear program is just a top item on a long list of dangerous and illegal activity by that regime. from cyberattacks to money laundering and counterfeiting, from human rights abuses, as chairman royce has pointed out, to the regular attacks on south korea, the kim regime runs roff shod over the norms -- roughshod over the norms. and the near universal condemnation of a global community or the deepening isolation of north korea from the rest of the world, so we're left to tighten the screws even further. that's what we're trying to do today. we need to work with south korea and japan on a tough coordinated response. we need to take every opportunity to collaborate on his issue with the chinese who wheel considerable influence over north korea and we need to

dial up our own sanctions and tighten sanctions enforcement and that's what this bill does. north korea is always looking for ways to get around our sanctions. the sanctions in this bill would focus especially on north korean elites who conduct shady transactions with shell corporations and then cover up the money trail. in pyongyang, the capital, these cronies of the kim regime pocket the cash while the rest of the north korean people suffer. i've been to north korea twice, and it's just sickening that the regime and its friends profit from these crimes while the rest of the country is literally starving. on that point, this bill includes important exceptions for the humanitarian aid that benefits the north korean people. our anger is not with the people of north korea. in fact, the united states does a great deal to provide aid to this oppressed population, but they deserve better from their leaders. that's why we should send this

bill to the president and that's why we should continue to make north korea a top foreign policy priority. the kim family has ruled north korea for many, many, many kim jong un seems to be the worst of a lot. the oppressions, the assassinations, the political strangle hold that he keeps the -- stranglehold that he keeps the whole country in and the fact that many people get caught, as chairman royce point thed out, in the gulag -- pointed out, in the gulag, families are oppressed. they are horrors. that's why we should send this bill to the president and why we should continue to make north korea a top foreign policy priority. so i'm proud to support this bill. i'm proud to be the lead democrat on the bill, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. i reserve the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: mr. speaker, before recognizing our next speaker, i also want to note that this bill effectively re-authorizes and extends the north korean human rights act of 2004, which i worked to support for more than a dozen years. and that groundbreaking law, which was re-authorized in 2008 and again in 2012 by our chairman emeritus ileana ros-lehtinen, emphasized that human rights, the free flow of information and the protection of those who have escaped are not only important to the people of north korea, they also are critical to changing north korea's strategic calculus and trying to force that rogue regime to address the needs of its own people instead of threatening its neighbors. mr. speaker, i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on africa, global health, global human rights and

international organizations. mr. smith: i thank my good friend from yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. smith: the north korea dictatorship is a threat that requires significantly enhanced vigilance and response. the north korea sanctions enforcement act of 2016, authored by chairman ed royce, will ensure that the obama administration takes meaningful action to mitigate north korea's cruelty, human rights abuse and military danger. the u.s. can no longer sit on the sidelines while kim jong un proliferates nuclear and missile technology and abuses and starves the north korean people. north korea's listed by the state department as a tier three country with respect to human trafficking. designated as one of eight countries of particular concern who are engaging in egregious violations of religious freedom. mr. chairman, i have chaired

four hearings on human rights abuses in north korea. it is as chairman royce noted a house of horrors. the u.n. commission on north korea recommended the u.n. impose targeted sanctions on north korean leaders responsible for these crimes against humanity. however, china blocks effective u.n. actions. this in part is why the congress and the administration must act now. north korean human rights abusers must be identified and listed so that sanctions can be appropriately applied. north korea's long range and launch of long range rocket last week re-energied concern over the country's intercontinental ballistic missile program. it was strongly condemned by the u.n. security council which avoyed to apply further sanctions. hopefully the security council investigation under way will include partner nations who purchase north korean missile technology. iran, to whom administration has just released billions of

dollars, is one of north korea's nuclear partners. we should be very concerned about that. at some point the iranians will require fiffle material beyond what they are allowed to produce or they may purchase actual warheads from north korea. or perhaps iran will get enriched uranium, their stash, back from russia. at a foreign affairs committee hearing yesterday, mr. speaker, chairman royce has had well over 35 oversight hearings on iran, president obama's coordinator for implementation of the iran nuclear deal where i asked him, where iran's stockpile of enriched ue ran yum sent? is it in russia? what city? do we or the iaea have on site access to where it's stored for verification purposes? remember reagan, trust and verify? on-site verification? shockingly the ambassador said he didn't in where the enriched uranium is.

he did say it was on a russian ship somewhere to a port or to a final destination we don't have a clue. yesterday's revelation was yet another flaw in the egregiously flawed iran nuclear deal, and we know that there is a connection between north korea and iran. our vigilance must be stepped up. this bill is a major step. the fact that it's so bipartisan and eliot engel, again working side by side with the chairman to make sure a good bill is produced. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson, a member of the foreign affairs committee and chairman of the armed services he subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. wilson: thank you, chairman ed royce, four your leadership on freemed and liberty. i strongly support the north

korean sanctions enforcement act of 2016. we have seen evidence that the monarchy in north korea led by an unstable dictator has become increasingly hostile, threatening its neighbors being american allies. sadly just last week it successfully tested a long range rocket which is capable of reaching california. the recent missile test come after years of ignoring nonproliferation agreements and conducting nuclear test without facing any meaningful consequences. as america continues to fight the global war on terrorism, we should not allow an unpredictable rogue leader to continue unchecked. we must change course to a strategy of peace through strength to protect american families. in 2003, i was one of the few members of congress to visit pyongyang north korea along with ranking member elon engel and chairman jeff miller. i saw farne the struggle and oppression of its citizens which have endured under

communist totalitarian rule. the -- compared to the dynamic capital of south korea, north korea is the ultimate example of another socialist failure. the north korean sanctions enforcement act strengthens our nation's ability to sanction the agents, government, and financial institutions that enable north korea's dangerous activities. i am grateful to chairman ed royce for introducing the north korea sanctions enforcement act unanimously supported in the u.s. senate with bipartisan support. which puts pressure on the regime by restricting them from selling weapons of mass destruction. importing and exporting conventional weapons, and engaging in further cyberattacks. it is also directing the state department hold the administration accountable by creating a strategy to improve enforcement of existing sanctions. this legislation is an important first step to achieving peace through strength in the region. i look forward with my colleagues on the foreign affairs committee and armed services committee to promote positive change and stability in northeast asia for all

koreans to have a bright future. i yield the bag of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, judge ted poe, chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism nonproliferation and trade. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. poe: i thank the chairman. i want to also reiterate the bipartisanship on which this legislation has been brought to the floor, the work of the chairman, and the ranking member who are experts in foreign affairs and especially countries like north korea. when i had a chance last year to visit with the pacific command, and i talked to the four-star admiral in pacific command, and i asked him this question. of the five entities that are threats to the united states, russia, china, iran, isis, and north korea, which of those

concerns you the most? and he quickly said, north korea. because they are an unstable regime. and this legislation will help, hopefully, to have that unstable dictator that murders his own people, that is trigger happy, that is developing all types of weapons and puts them on the open market to sell them to other nations that want to cause mischief in the world. hopefully stop this conduct of north korea. yes, north korea has nuclear weapons. they are developing missiles to deliver those nuclear weapons. about a year or year and a half ago the dictator of north korea said he wanted that first intercontinental ballistic missile to go to austin, texas. i take that a little personal, mr. speaker. i don't know why he picked austin. anyway, and their delivery

capability, they are working on that. and they have no intention of stopping. so, the international community must tell the dictator of north korea you can't do this. you can't be a menace to not only your own people in south korea and the entire region but the world. so, this piece of legislation is an important step in stopping the mischief making, trigger happy dictator of north korea. i yield back the balance of my tifmente that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. gentleman from new york. mr. engel: we have no other speakers, so i guess it's time to close. is that what we are going to do? ok. let me in closing yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: let me first start by joe wilson who was on the

trip with me as he mentioned to north korea. we drove in from the airport on a bus and joe was sitting at the front of it and we saw all these hostile billboards. and we couldn't of course read it, it was in korean, but we could look at the pictures. one of the pictures had an american soldier on the ground with a north korean soldier with a bacon net -- bayonet right through the american soldier's head. the reason why we knew it was an american soldier because it said u.s.a. on the soldier's uniform. and wilson sat in the front and very carefully maneuvered his camera and snapped a picture. we have that picture. and that was something that if the north koreans had known we were doing they probably would he have confiscated the camera. they didn't. i just wanted to mention that because there were, i believe,

six of us on that trip. and it was a bipartisan trip. it was an eye opener. i went back a few years later. i remember the gentleman from south carolina sitting there and very skillfully maneuvering that camera. that's a good picture. we should probably blow up and let our colleagues see it so they understand the regime that we are dealing with. this was not dim jungune -- kim jungune this was his father. so it seems to be getting progressively worse. the father was known as the dear leader. the grandfather, who was the person who was most responsible for the revolution, was also heralded. wherever we went in north korea there were pictures of the two of them on the walls, whether it was in schools, whether it was in hotel.

it's a very eerie feeling. it brings you back to those of us when we were kids read this book "1984." which was in the future now is in the past. those people who read that book to me that sort of describes the korean regime. it's a scary thing. the work we are doing here today is so important. it's so important to send a message. it's so important to let the world know that we haven't forgotten this. that this remains a priority. the u.s. congress and bipartisan priority in the u.s. congress. so the kim regime must understand if it continues to defight global consensus and ignore its obligations under international law, there will be consequences. the elites in north korea must be shown if they try to skirt sanctions, we'll find new ways to go after them. anyone who wants to do business with north korea must be warned we will crack down on those who help sustain this brutal

regime. the only way forward for north korea is for its leaders to give us their illegal and dangerous pursuits and come back to the negotiating table. so i'm proud congress is sending this bill to the president. and i hope we will ramp up engagement with our partners and allies and make it clear that north korea's present course can only lead to deeper isolation for the country's leaders and sadly continued suffering for the country's people. when we went to north korea i think the most stark difference that i have seen in all the years i have been in congress was when we went to north korea to the capital, pyongyang and then travel to the capital of south korea, seoul, where congressman wilson's wife and other spouses were waiting there. seoul is a city that is vibrant much like new york or chicago or any of the big cities in our country. where the people are well

dressed, well-fed, and shops are opened. it looks like a real western-style city. of course it's in asia, but it reminds one of tokyo or cities like that. you go to north korea and it's just like going back into 1950's, east germany. that's just the feeling that you get. you see hotels and buildings that were constructed but were constructed poorly and couldn't be occupied. when we came back about 18 months later, it was still just the way it was 18 months before. you hardly see a car. traffic lights don't work. it's just bizarre. i think that's the word. and the poor north korean people are the ones who are really suffering. but the contrast between pyongyang the capital of north korea and seoul, the capital of

south korea, was just unbelievable. it was like night and day. it's on the same peninsula. it's the same people, korean people, yet it's like night and day. and the picture that i think they say pictures are worth a thousand words, there is a picture of the korean peninsula at night and if you take a look, it was taken by satellite, and if you take a look, you see the south korea is vibrant, there are all kinds of lights, it's lit up. and north korean is absolutely black. absolutely dark. no lights. no energy. no power. what a contrast. two koreas, same people. one is a bastion of democracy in new york and the chairman and i have visited south korea, and one a brutal, brutal dictatorship. i hope that this bill overwhelmingly passes. i hope that we have strong support from both sides of the aisle, and we want to let the people of north korea know that

we are with them not with the brutal regime and that's why we are doing this legislation today. so i thank chairman royce for it. i urge everyone to vote yes. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i would like to again thank ranking member elliott engel for his -- eliot engel for his work on this issue. he's my co-author on this bill, and i would like to concur in his thoughts about the shocking nature of this totalitarian regime, not just in terms of the way it has treated its people but also its hostility towards south korea and to the united states and to the west. and to just share the thought, as he's expressed, this level of struggle that the people themselves in north korea live

in under this totalitarian state. when i was in north korea, i had an opportunity to see something that struck me just malnutrition. and they say that n.g.o. community tells us close to 50% of those children are malnourished. what i saw in terms of the malnourishment -- and they say -- the n.g.o. community says malnourished to the point it affects their ability to learn. the malnourishment can be seen. the average height of the person in north korea is four inches shorter than in south korea. and that is a really stark thing to see as you're in north korea. but the other observation that mr. engel made was the overt hostility shown to the united states and, of course, to south

korea and to the rest of the world. corvette. seeing the a south korean ship in which 46 south koreans lost their lives, over 50 were injured. they -- it was split in half by a torpedo from a north korean submarine and they actually lifted the two halves out of the water. and inspecting that and looking at the letters that some of the -- the last letters that some of those young south korean sailors had sent home before they perished, it's just a reminder, it is a reminder of how brutal that regime can be n its own people but also on hose who -- against who it has ill-intent.

so the south koreans have suffered from this. now to see them move forward and expand this nuclear weapons program. each new launch brings them closer. they say they can hit the west coast of the united states. they're claiming they will be able to hit the entire u.s. with their icbm program. these placards that you see and these posters actually show their missiles coming down on the united states. and so at this point, i think it is critical and our colleagues mountain senate feel the same way and i want to thank our senate colleagues for building upon the house bill which eliot engel and i have authored, and i also appreciate the cooperation of the bipartisan house leadership to ensure this bill's quick scheduling. it's just back from the senate. in the wake of north korea's fourth nuclear test and its recent missile launch, many of our allies also are trying to

tighten the screws now on that regime in order to slow its capability to deliver this type of weapon. only days ago, south korea shuttered the industrial complex because as they observed it was giving the north korean regime the hard currency it needed in order to move forward its weapons programs. and this will end a very important revenue for the north korean regime. japan has issued a new set of sanctions as well, and china and russia should take notice and follow this example. it is time for the united states to stand with our partners in northeast asia as we press china and russia to follow suit and this bill sends the message to that regime in north korea that they must reform and they must disarm this nuclear weapons program.

by cutting off kim jong un's access to the hard currency he needs for his army and his weapons, h.r. 757 will return us to the one strategy that has worked -- financial pressure on the north korean regime. so i urge the passage of this [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its

caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> this president's day weekend, book tv has three days of nonfiction books and authors on c-span2. and here's some programs to watch for. saturday at 9:00 a.m., we're live from the ninth annual savannah book festival. sunday night at 9:00 eastern on after words, criminalologist tracks the factors behind the surge and downturns in violent crime in america. from the 1960's through the 21st century. his book is called "the rise and fall of violent crime in america." he's interviewed by a senior fellow for the policy advisory group at urban institute. >> crime actually begins to . ll in the early 1980's and i think that happens because the baby boom generation, which was the major players here in the crime rise, began to age out.

>> on monday at noon eastern, the book "geek hersey," rescuing social change from the consult of technology. he argues that while technology sometimes solves troubling and social economic problems, it's not the main driver of progress. watch book tv all weekend every weekend on c-span2. elevision for serious readers. >> the reality is the best presidents, the greatest presidents, have been willing to recognize they weren't the smartest person in the room. and to surround themselves with people they thought were smarter than themselves. >> sunday night on q&a, former secretary of defense and former director of the c.i.a., robert gates, discusses his book. mr. gates has served under several presidents, most recently presidents george w. bush and barack obama. >> at the end of the cold war,

when i was director of central intelligence, i came to believe very strongly that the american people had given c.i.a. a pass on a lot of things because of this existential conflict with the soviet union. and i believe that after the end of the cold war, we were going to have to be more open about what we did and why we did it and even to an extent how we did it, to help the american people better understand why intelligence was important to the government. and to presidents. and why presidents valued it. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> up next, federal reserve chair janet yellen presents her central bank's semiannual monetary policy report before the senate banking committee. she discussed the future of the u.s. economy in light of domestic and global issues. this is about three hours.

>> the committee will come to order. today we will receive testimony from federal reserve chair janet yellen. this semiannual monetary policy report to the congress is an important statutory tool for oversight of the federal reserve. she'll she'll which was created by -- shelley walcott which was created by congress over 100 years ago as part of the federal reserve act. mr. shelby: that grants the fed a certain degree of independence but in no way does t preclude congressional oversight or accountability to the american people. there's broad consensus that the fed should communicate in a and that helps congress the public understand its monetary decision makings. some argue for unfettered digs cession while others advocate

-- discretion while others advocate a rule-based construct. recently, a statement released by 24 distinguished economists and other officials, including john taylor, george salts, allen melter and three nobel prize winners, disputes the idea that adherence to a clear or more predictable rule or strategy would reduce fed independence. their statement argues, and i'll quote, publicly reporting a strategy helps prevent policymakers from bending under pressure and sacrificing independence. last year this committee favorably reported the financial regulatory improvement act, which included a provision that would not establish a rule, but rather the fed to disclose to congress any rule it may happen to use in its decision making process.

i believe this represents a reasonable step toward increased transparency and accountability. it's my hope that this year we'll be able to reach some kind of agreement on this and other banking reforms. never before has it been more important for congress to consider ways to strengthen fed transparency and accountability. since the financial crisis, the fed has expanded its monetary policy actions to an extent that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. as former fed chairman paul volcker described during the crisis, the fed took, and i'll quote him, actions that extend the very edge of its lawful and implied powers, transcending certain long imbedded principles and practices. we're all too familiar with the successive rounds of quantitative easing that broke the fed's balance sheet to over $4 trillion, with no wind-down in sight. i think it begs the question, how will the fed shrink a balance sheet that exceeds 20%

of the entire u.s. economy? some also worry that the fed may have assumed economic responsibilities beyond its statutory mandates of price stability and full employment. to the extent that the federal reserve has done so, it should be disclosed and justified. while i agree that the fed should be free to make independent decisions, it should not be completely shielded from explaining its decisions and the factors that it uses to guide them. at times it seems that the federal reserve officials resist even sensible reforms designed to improve economic performance, congressional oversight, or public understanding of the federal reserve's actions. the need to preserve fed independence is very real. but surely it does not justify objection to any reform. independence and accountability should not be viewed as mutually exclusive concepts. in fact, accountability is even

more crucial given the federal reserve's role as a financial regulator. never before has a single entity held so much power over the direction of our financial system. notably, dodd-frank expanded the fed's regulatory authority over large sectors of the economy, including insurance companies and other nonbank financial institutions. such regulatory authority and the rulemakings issued as a result of it raise significant questions. recently, the federal reserve has issued a number of new regulations stemming from the rules such as a total loss of capital, the liquidity coverage ratio and high quality liquid asset ratings. these rule makings are based on the -- rulemakings are based on the requirements set by the bank of international settlements and the committee on banking supervision. instead of allowing

international bodies to serve as de facto u.s. regulators, the fed should appropriately vet these rules and answer important questions. for example, are these -- are those international requirements appropriately tailored for our domestic financial institutions? are they even necessary, given existing rules? are they harming our economy or placing u.s. firms at a disadvantage? i continue to encourage the federal reserve to further exercise its regulatory discretion, to tailor enhanced provincial standards according to the system at risk profile of each institution, not arbitrary factors. and where it does not have the authority to do so, congress should step in with legislative changes. none of the federal reserve's authorities are immune from reform and many of us believe that reform is long overdue. i look forward to your testimony today and your thoughts on these important

issues. mr. brown: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam chair. it's so nice to have you back here. it's good to see everyone back in this hearing room. this is our first gathering since october and welcome all of you back. i can't help but think back to february, 2009, when then chair ben bernanke told this committee that our economy was suffering a severe contraction. president obama had just taken the reins in the middle of a financial crisis that would become the worst since the great depression. american taxpayers had just rescued the banking and auto industry. by the time we hit bottom, nine million jobs had disappeared, the unemployment rate soared to 10% in some places that we all represent, it was higher. five million families lost their home to foreclosure. i've mentioned that my wife and i live in zip code 44105 in cleveland which had more foreclosures in the first half of 2007 than any zip code in

the united states. $13 trillion in household wealth was wiped out. it was one of the darkest periods in our nation's economic history. seven years later it's clear we've come a long way since the financial crisis. our economy has added 13 million jobs since 2010. we've had 71 consecutive, that's almost six years, job growth. the unemployment rate dropped to below 5%. the lowest level since 2008. average hourly earnings are up .5% since december. the second strongest monthly gain since the crisis. up 2.5% in the last year. and the fed as we know increased rates for the first time in a decade. that's the good news. but we still face severe challenges. wages have been too flat for too long. too many workers are still looking for jobs. those that have one are not making as much as they should be. some are benefiting from the

recovery, mostly the top 5% are benefiting from the recovery, far more than average workers. international economies are slowing. american exports are challenged by the strong dollar. oil prices are at all-time lows. though they haven't provided the economic boost that many analysts expected. inflation remains very low. the slow and steady progress of the economy has given rise to what i fear and i hear that, i see that in this room, what i fear is a collective amnesia from many on wall street and many in congress, as if they forgot what happened in 2006, 2007 and 2008. as if they didn't know about the human suffering in every one of our states, the lost wealth, the lost jobs, the foreclosured homes. i think that few of us and none of us enough spend time talking to people who have lost their homes and have to explain to their child that they're going

to have to move to a new neighborhood, in a less nice house, and go to danche school and the pain that causes -- a different school and the pain that's caused. they seem to have forgotten this, it suggests that far too many people who sit on this side of the dice have forgotten how devastating the crisis was for an entire generation of working and middle class americans. instead of working to strengthen our economy and to bolster the financial system's safeguards, some republicans want to unleash the forces that almost destroyed the economy in the first place. they want to go back to business as usual with wall street. instead of conducting oversight hearings to push for implementation of the wall street reform act, we all remember when president obama signed dodd-frank, the chief financial service lobbyists in this town said, now it's halftime. meaning they were going to go to work to try to stop the fed

and weaken the fdic rules and do whatever they could do on behalf of wall street. so instead of conducting hearings to push for implementation of wall street reform, this committee instead is holding hearings on weakening the law for banks and nonbanks and how to make it impossible for regulators to finalize their rules. the banking committee has not in 13 months held a single hearing on strengthening consumer protections. we haven't talked about improving credit reporting and debt collection. we haven't examined how to curtail payday lending or make rental housing more accessible, affordable and safe. there's a lot of work to do to ensure we do not repeat the mistakes that led to the great recession. i sent a letter to the chair yellen this week urging the federal reserve to do more to reduce the risks posed by big banks' involvement in the commodities business. the fed and the fd irving c need to make public determinations if individual firms haven't provided credible

living wills that demonstrate that they could go out of business without wrecking the financial system. this is one of the ways we determine if too big to fail still actually exists. the regulators should finish rules relating to compensation incentives on wall street. understanding when americans who have not had a raise for years are just barely making it, when they see these -- this kind of compensation on wall street and these kinds of bonuses for executives in many cases who helped to get us into the bad situation we are in. if we learned anything from the crisis, it's is thank wall street encouraged behavior that caused the crisis at a steep price to american homeowners and american renters. the fed still has work remaining on its regulatory framework for the nonbanks that own savings and loan holding companies, and i hope you'll pay close attention to the business models. while regulators have taken

important steps to rein in risks and money market, mutual funds and the triparty re pmbing o market, policymakers should continue to examine these and other potential threats in the nonbank sector. to those that say that the reforms that have taken place in the u.s. will put us at a competitive disadvantage, this week has shown us that they actually benefit our financial system. it's clear to me that as a result of a new regulation, u.s. financial institutions are more resilient than their counterparts in other parts of the world. chair yellen, i look forward to your assessment of both the economy and where we are with efforts to strengthen and more stabilize our financial system. all of us must do the necessary work to promote financial stability, to protect consumers, to help prevent what could be the next crisis. there's far too much at stake for american families to do otherwise. thank you. mr. shelby: your written testimony will be made part of the record in its entirety. you proceed as you wish. welcome to the committee again.

ms. yellen: chairman shelby, ranking member brown, and other members of the committee, i'm pleased to present the federal reserve's semiannual monetary policy report to the congress. in my remarks today, i will discuss the current economic situation and outlook before turning to monetary policy. since my appearance before this committee last july, the economy has made further progress toward the federal reserve's objective of maximum employment. while inflation is expected to remain low in the near term, in part because of the further declines in energy prices, the federal open market committee expects that inflation will rise to its 2% objective over the medium term. in the labor market, the number of nonfarm payroll jobs rose 2.7 million in 2015 and posted

a further gain of 150,000 in january of this year. the cumulative increase in employment since its trough in early 2010 is now more than 13 million jobs. meanwhile, the unemployment ate fell to 4.9% in january, .8% below its level year ago and below its medium of the most recent estimates of its longer run normal level. other measures of labor market conditions have also shown solid improvement, with noticeable declines over the past year and the number of individuals who want and are available to work but have not actively searched recently. and in the number of people who are working part time but would rather work full time. however, these measures remain above the levels seen prior to

the recession, suggesting that some slack in labor markets remains. thus, while labor market conditions have improved substantially, there is still room for further sustainable improvement. the strong gains in the job market last year were accompanied by a continued moderate expansion in economic activity. u.s. real gross domestic product is estimated to have 2015.sed about 1.75% in over the course of the year, subdued foreign growth and the appreciation of the dollar restrained net exports. in the fourth quarter of last year, growth in the gross domestic product is reported to have slowed more sharply, to an annual rate of just .75%. again, growth was held back by weak net exports, as well as by a negative contribution from inventory investment.

although private domestic final demand appears to have slowed somewhat in the fourth quarter, it is continued to advance -- it has continued to advance. household spending has been supported by steady job gains and solid growth in real disposable income, aided in part by the declines in oil prices. one area of particular strength has been purchases of cars and light trucks. sales of these vehicles in 2015 reached their highest level ever. in the drilling and mining sector, lower oil prices have caused companies to slash jobs and sharply cut capital outlays. but in most other sectors, business investment grows -- rose over the second half of last year. and home building activity has continued to move up on balance, although the level of new construction remains well below the longer run levels

implied by demographic trends. financial conditions in the united states have recently become less supportive of growth. with declines in broad measures of equity prices, higher borrowing rates for riskier borrowers and the further depreciation of the dollar. these developments, if they prove persistent, could weigh on the outlook for economic activity and the labor market. although declines in longer term interest rates and oil prices provide some offset. still, ongoing employment gains and faster wage growth should support the growth of real incomes and therefore consumer spending, and global economic growth should pick up over time , supported by highly accommodative monetary policies abroad. against this bamdrop, the committee expects that with gradual adjustments in the stance of monetary policy,

economic activity will expand at a moderate pace in coming years and that labor market indicators will continue to strengthen. as is always the case, the economic outlook is uncertain. foreign economic developments in particular pose risks to u.s. economic growth. most notably, although recent economic indicators do not suggest a sharp slowdown in chinese growth, declines in the foreign exchange value of the have intensified uncertainty about china's exchange rate policy and the prospects for its economy. this uncertainty has led to increased volatility in global financial markets and against the back drop of persistent weakness abroad, exacerbated concerns about the outlook for global growth. these growth concerns, along

with strong supply conditions and high inventories, contributed to the recent fall in the prices of oil and other commodities. in turn, low commodity prices could trigger financial stresses in commodity exporting economies, particularly in vulnerable emerging market economies and for commodity producing firms in many countries. should any of these downside risks materialize, foreign activity and demand for u.s. exports could weaken and financial market conditions kotiten further. of course economic growth could also exceed our projections for a number of reasons. including the possibility that low oil prices will boost u.s. economic growth more than we expect. at present, the committee is closely monitoring global economic and financial developments, as well as

assessing their implications for the labor market and inflation and the balance of risk to the outlook. as i noted earlier, inflation continues to run below the committee's 2% objective. overall consumer prices, as measured by the price index, for personal consumption expenditures, increased just .5% over the 12 months of 2015. to a large extent, the low average pace of inflation last year can be traced to the earlier steep declines in oil prices and in the prices of other imported goods. given the recent further declines in the prices of oil in other commodities, as well as the further appreciation of the dollar, the committee expects inflation to remain low in the near term. however, once oil and import prices stop falling, the downward pressure on domestic inflation from those sources

should wane and as the labor market strengthens further, inflation is expected to rise gradually to 2% over the medium term. in light of the current short fall of inflation from 2%, the committee is carefully monitoring actual and expected progress toward its inflation goal. of course inflation expectations play an important role in the inflation process. and the committee's confidence in the inflation outlook depends importantly on the degree to which longer run inflation expectations remain well anchored. it is worth noting in this regard that market-based measures of inflation compensation have moved down to historically low levels. our analysis suggests the changes in risk and liquidity premiums over the past year and a half contributed significantly to these

declines. some survey measures of longer run inflation expectations are also at the low end of their recent ranges. overall, however, they seem reasonably stable. turning to monetary policy. the fomc conducts policy to promote maximum employment and price stability as required by our statutory mandate from congress. last march, the committee stated that it would be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate when it had seen further improvement in the labor market and was reasonably confident that inflation would move back to its 2% objective over the medium term. in december, the committee judged that these two criteria had been satisfied and decided to raise the target range for to ederal funds rate .25% between .25% and .5%.

this increase marked the end of the seven-year period during which the federal funds rate was held near zero. the committee did not adjust the target range in january. the decision in december to raise the federal funds rate reflected the committee's assessment that even after a modest reduction in policy accommodation, economic activity would continue to expand at a moderate pace and labor market indicators would continue to strengthen. although inflation was running below the objective, the fomc judged that most of the softness in inflation was attributable to transitory factors that are likely to abate over time. and the diminishing slack in labor and product markets would help move inflation toward 2%. in addition, the committee recognized that it takes time for monetary policy actions to

affect economic conditions. if the fomc delayed the start of policy normalization for too long, it might have to tighten policy relatively abruptly in the future to keep the economy from overheating and inflation from significantly overshooting its objective. such an abrupt tightening could increase the risk of pushing the economy into recession. it's important to note that even after this increase, the stance of monetary policy remains accommodative. the fomc anticipates that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant only gradual increases in the federal funds rate. in addition, the committee expects that the federal funds rate is likely to remain for some time below the levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run. this expectation is consistent

with the view that the neutral ominal federal funds rate de fine -- would be neither expansionnary nor contractionary if the economy was operating near potential is currently low by historical standards and is likely to rise only gradually over time. the low level of the neutral federal funds rate may be partially attributable to a range of persistent economic headwinds such as limited access to credit for some borrowers, weak growth abroad, and the significant appreciation of the dollar. that have weighed on aggregate demand. of course, monetary policy is by no means on a preset course. the actual path of the federal funds rate will depend on what incoming data tell us about the economic outlook and we will regularly reassess what level

of the federal funds rate is consistent with achieving and maintaining maximum employment and 2% inflation. in doing so, we will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments. in particular, stronger growth or a more rapid increase in the committee currently anticipates would suggest that the neutral federal funds rate was rising more quickly than expected, making it appropriate to raise the federal funds rate more quickly as well. but conversely, if the economy were to disappoint, a lower path of the federal funds rate would be appropriate. we are committed to our dual objectives and we'll adjust policy as appropriate to foster

financial conditions consistent with their attainment over time. consistent with its previous communications, the federal reserve used interest on excess reserves or ioer, and overnight reverse repurchase or rrp -- r.r.p. operations, to move the federal funds rate into a new target range. the adjustment to the ioer rate has been particularly important in raising the federal funds rate and short-term interest rates more generally in an environment of abundant bank reserves. meanwhile, overnight r.r.p. operations compliment the ioer rate by establishing a soft floor on money market interest rates. the ioer rate and the overnight r.r.p. operations allowed the fomc to control the federal funds rate effectively without having to first shrink its balance sheet by selling a large part of its holdings of

longer term securities. the committee judged that removing monetary policy accommodation by traditional approach of raising short-term interest rates is preferable to selling longer term assets. because such sales could be difficult to calibrate and could generate unexpected financial market reactions. the committee is continuing its policy of reinvesting proceeds from maturing treasury securities and principled payments from -- principled payments from agency debt and mortgage-backed securities. as highlighted, the fomc anticipates continuing this policy until normalization of the level of the federal funds rate is well under way. maintaining sizable holdings of longer term securities should help maintain accommodative financial conditions and reduce the risk that we might need to return the federal funds rate

target to the effective lower bound in response to future adverse shocks. thank you. i would be pleased to take your questions. mr. shelby: madam chair, we've talked about this privately before. ut, does the fed still use the phillips rule in a lot of its deliberations? ms. yellen: well, -- mr. shelby: is that an important tool or just one of many tools? ms. yellen: it is essentially a theory that fits reasonably but certainly not perfect, explaining the inflation process. and it's a theory that says, first, that inflation expectations play a key role in determining inflation. second, that various supply shocks such as movements in the price of oil or commodities,

where import prices also play an important role, and, third, that the degree of slack in the labor market or the degree of more generally of pressure on resources in the economy as a whole exert an influence on inflation as well. and that theory underlines the kind of statement that i've made, that if inflation remains -- inflation expectations remain well anchored and the transitory influence of energy prices and the dollar fade over time, that in a tightening labor market with higher resource utilization, i expect inflation to move back up to 2%. it is consistent with that phillips curve theory. so in essence, yes, i want to make clear that all of those elements play a role and of course there can be other

captured actors not by that model that make a difference. so, that mold in part underlies an expectation inflation will return to 2%. but in our statement in december and january, the committee indicated that we will continue to assess actual developments with inflation and see whether they are in alignment with our expectations because, after all, this is not a theory that's perfect. mr. shelby: would you say today decline in cipitous e price of oil and gas and plus the rise of the dollar has surprised the fed to some extent? or could you have predicted all of this? ms. yellen: so, i think we have

been at market -- markets have been and we have been quite surprised by movements in oil prices. i think in part they reflect supply influences, but demand may also play a role. the stronger dollar is something we anticipated because u.s. economy has been performing more strongly than many foreign economies and we have divergence in the stance of monetary policy that influences capital flows on the dollar. nevertheless, the strength of the dollar and the extent to which it has moved up since mid-2014 is not something that we anticipated. so, yes, we have been surprised in part by those developments and they have played a significant role in