people have to be rational about all of this and this nonsense this morning from the c.b.i. that we'd lose a million jobs when in fact what they were saying was, if you look at the worst case scenario you would create a million jobs fewer than you might create in the best case scenario between now and 2030. there are too many variables in that. it wasn't worth reading beyond the first couple of paragraphs. >> how specifically is the leave campaign address what the consequences of this will be? this could potentially give a shock to the global economy at a time when china, the global demand is questionable, europe is stagnating, the u.s. is doing ok but you know, no one needs the shock. what is the leave campaign's response to that? mr. mr. fox: the not risk-free. but i don't think the elements to create shock are necessarily there.

the european union is much more dependent on selling to britain. there's an incentive to get a free trade agreement in as quickly as possible. to prevent there being a shock to the economy. hat diminishes our risk. it is almost inconceivable that markets are not pricing in already some of this risk we have seen, fluctuations in urrency.

although those tend to self correct recently. in any case, for us, and it is about our ability to prepare for a more global future. i do not view this referendum as being about leaving the eu. i think it is about rejoining the rest of the world. i don't view this referendum is being about leaving the eu. i view it as rejoining the rest of the world. >> has said the u.s. would not initiate a free trade agreement with the u.k. should you decide to leave the eu. what is your response to that? dr. fox: there will be a new government next year one way or another. frankly, we are in the dying embers of the democratics think is not significant. >> check that. dr. fox: let us leave the politics aside and i will come back to the concept of bullying, which is hugely counterproductive. given the u.k. is such a big market, what would be the point of introducing a friction into that relationship? it is not make any sense economically unless you're willing to say we will punish our manufacturers and consumers something as abstract to be members of the european union. this whole involvement in trying to threaten the british public or what is perceived as

threats by the british public is not received well. we would ship tears of britain left, they said. we were told it would be unknown consequences if we left. we were told we would be ruthlessly targeted economically. we went from being best friends to protection within several days. if we do not pay a certain amount every year, bad things would happen to us. i am not sure it is a great thing to be in an organization of promises you a punishing beating unless you give them money. same thing from the u.s. perspective trying to tell the british people that they have to do something when it is their own national free will that is being tested does not o down well. n your, we had someone telling

us those who want to leave the european union should visit european war cemeteries. correct me if i'm wrong here, but the reason we have the european war cemeteries is because continental europe was unable to contain its extremism in the 20th century. the growth of communism. we were able to help europe diminish the impact of its own folly twice in the last century to rewrite history in this

way. many of us find it offensive. fine, let us stick to the arguments about trade and politics and those who want britain to remain in the eu. let them make the case for super nationalism. let them make the case that we should submerge our identities. i don't think super nationalism has a good track record. the last example i could think of was the soviet union and that did not and that will. what is happening in europe at the present time with tensions and tendencies, i think britain is better outside that for all the reasons i have given. >> let me pull on unity a little bit because a big question mark is issued decisions to leave the u.k. have implications for scotland perhaps initiating a second referendum? some have argued this is not about the eu. it is about the unity of the

united kingdom itself. obviously, you have very strong connections and understanding here. dr. fox: being scottish, i do. when people normally ask my politics, are normally describe them as an ugly constructive free market skeptic. >> that is a strain. [laughter] dr. fox: at least we have the benefit of clarity. we had a referendum in scotland. the people of scotland voted to remain part of the union. i don't know which bit of that the scottish nationals did not understand but they lost the referendum. people of scotland voted to be part of the union and this is the decision taken by the union. in the referendum, every vote counts equally. it is equally weighted in a referendum. scottish nationalists have made

it clear that whether we are in the eu or not, we will draft another referendum on independence when we can win t. it seems bizarre that people ay i don't like being in the eu but i will vote to stay because the scottish nationalists may call another referendum. you end up in the eu you don't like it you have a referendum anyway for the worst of both worlds. we should leave the internal elements aside. frankly, because i am in that kind of mood this morning, you do not hear english politicians saying that if there is a narrow leave vote in england but it is outweighed in scotland and wales, that they will try to break up the

country because they did not like the result of people give them. we live in a union. it is a union decision. we have to accept that decision whatever turns out to be. looking at the polls, none of us can tell at the moment. what they do tell is it is very evenly balanced except when you look at the willingness of voters to go to the polls. those who want to leave have a very high probability of voting whereas those who want to stay have a much lower when. -- one. if the campaign continued, we know it is not very good but we know it would be better to stay inside than outside is hardly a call for arms for voter turnout. >> talk about the security dimension of this. you touched upon it in your remarks. i look as if a decision is made to leave, i see the u.k. for two years solely focused on a very difficult negotiation, not

able to play its role in nato and other international organizations when we have pressing challenges and we need a strong u.k. what is your response to that? how can we through this period -- again, this isn't leave or remain. how do we ensure that the u.k. plays a very strong role in the world? dr. fox: people do make this case that if we end up leaving, we will be so preoccupied we will not be with to do anything else and i believe as a country we can walk and chew gum. we are able to do more than one thing on the international stage at one time. there are important elements of consequences on the security side, but i think it is being positive in fact. if you look at the nato budget at the present time and how much is contributed by the eu

countries who are members of nato, it is a frighteningly small sum. if you ask british audiences how big you think that proportion is, they think 40% or 50%. when you tell them 24% and if you to the u.k. out, it would be 17% whereas the u.s. is contributing 74% to the nato budget, that is ridiculous. the eu is an important part of our security. nato has kept the peace since world war ii, not the european union. that is not to say that everything about the european union is bad. i don't believe that is true. but nato is the cornerstone of our defense. the trouble with nato in recent years in my view is that it has forgotten its political

role. the u.s. has been too happy to and over a lot of that political roles of the european union, which has a very different global perspective from the u.s.. i think if britain were to be outside the european union will first of all, because european defense is france at that point ffectively, it removes the pretensions from the eu that it is the global defense force whether overtly or potentially for the future. i think that would force the u.k. to have a stronger focus on the political role of nato, which i think has been sorely lacking in recent times. i see no evidence of a forthcoming summit of that being back on the agenda when it ought to be. i don't to the downside

hat. i do see it getting much-needed shock therapy to the remaining countries in their european union that they better start thinking about their own security because there is not going to be the pretense of the u.k. umbrella. >> president obama in an article that appeared in the atlantic recently complained that the u.k. and other allies have not paid their fair share. do you believe the u.k. has paid his fair share in global security? >> we are one of -- dr. fox: we are one of only four countries meeting its gdp commitment. i would like to see it done at a higher level. i also want to see budgetary consolidation in the u.k. you have european countries, a large number of them and i would not name them whose contributions are verging on laughable in terms of wider european security. i sent along with bob gates to our european allies and say you cannot have it both ways. you cannot complain that you are very heavily influenced by american foreign security

policy then fields when your hands in your pockets to develop -- fail to put your hands in your pockets to develop a voice. you cannot expect to have a free ride on the back of american taxpayers which a lot of european countries have done. i would exempt the u.k. from that. we are being low along with other countries to have not been pulling their weight, particularly in the likes to the way the u.k. has alongside the u.s. in afghanistan and iraq to be lectured we did not play our part in our security. >> some suggested that the one person that will be celebrating a leave decision will be vladimir putin. dr. fox: well, i don't think that his invasion of georgia or his annexation of crimea or impressions into ukraine were pulled up by the members of the european union unless i am

reatly mistaken. this is one of the great calculations. we have the strength of putin because of serial appeasement by the west. you had a cyber attack on estonia. he invaded georgia. we did very little, and he still has troops there today. in crimea, we did some sanctions. it is our weakness to respond. putin, it has emboldened him. one of the key factors is british european union involvement is fanciful. >> now it is time to get out to the referendum.

there is a lawsuit being put for by british patriots the have lived outside of written for the last 15 years. we are confident it will be held on june 23. dr. fox: it will be held june 23. a lot of people wanted to be held later in september. we have elections in ondon. a new mayor in london. we have scottish elections and other local elections and political parties did not want the referendum people for these elections for a lot of conservatives in particular, they are not actively fighting the local elections because they are out fighting the referendum. that has been in other little piece inside the parties honor. it will be june 23. it is a very big day.

the pollsters and academics tell us that for all of the pressure that is being arrived by this, that we can expect a relatively poll. heather: this is a historic vote. dr. fox: i think europe energizes people who care about europe. a lot of folks see it as an abstract pursuit. if you are looking at the scale, a very high proportion f those who say they want to eave our between 8-10 -- are between 8-10. my guess would be a high turnout favors remain. low turnout favors leave. i think that is where we are going. it will be june 23. when we wake of june 24, whatever happens, things will not be the same. heather: in the london

elections, there are a couple of other regional elections, will they tell us anything? is this truly local? dr. fox: they will tell us nothing about the referendum. what is interesting about scotland compared to other parts of the u.k., there is a very large don't know oters. my suspicion is a lot of that is i want to say rather than just don't know given the pressure from all the parties in scotland. i think a lot of voters want to leave with we are not willing to tell the pollsters. in the last few weeks, there has been one other movement you alluded to at the beginning. there is a much better guide than where people are putting opinions, and that is where people are putting their money. movements from what is a very heavy remain vote with the ookies to more of a shift.

there is no doubt there is a real change going on. the question is how many voters are interested, and how far does the tide come in? when you asked me the crystal ball question -- heather: we will do that at the very end. the top three issues on voters's mines, migration number one. europe or economy and the impact. sub say the external events may shape the referendum as much as the internal deliberations on it. how is migration -- how is its implications for the syrian migration crisis that europe is expressing right now? any thoughts as we look at migration questions as we go to june 23? dr. fox: well, one of the easons that the remain campaign did not want a september referendum was that

he did not want the summer of migrant pictures across our tv screens. i think it is too late for that. we have seen the same pictures again and again. it looks like europe has lost control of its southern border. that will also be very controversial in the u.k. but the events in paris and cologne very widely covered in the u.k. media. the information being if we don't have proper control of our borders, we're much more porous to threats that might come in. i am open to have a point system for the u.k. i believe immigration can bring the economic benefits if it is the right immigration. what we have seen in europe is that it has not been an attempt to save fine, -- say fine,

let's pick the people who will be best served, whether they are refugees and so on. britain has a different policy from the eu because we said we will take syrian refugees, but we will only take them from you and can't -- from u.n. camps where we know who they are. mrs. merkel is in trouble because she said we will take whoever runs fastest furthest and that left trouble for children being stranded on the other side of the situation. you have a lot of single young man who could get to germany quickly before the germans eventually put up the gates. that has been a big worry. it a lot people's minds, it is who are the migrants coming at europe and what will that impact have? when you look at the u.k., you have clearly the best

performing european economies at the present time leaving the euro zone wall behind. to put that in context, we are constantly being told in the referendum in britain that membership of the european union is key to our economic uccess, which does beg the question why is it then that over 20 countries with the highest unemployment, 16 are in the european union, and why of the top 10, only one is not in the european union that is turkey? if it is so great for economic performance, why is it not working for almost everybody else? the governor of the bank of england told us that britain gets the lion's share of edwards investment u.k., which must be because of our membership of the eu. think about the logic of

that. if we were getting inward investments because of the eu, we would get a proportionate share of investments to monopolize your. we are getting -- investments to lion's share. we are getting the lion's share because we are doing something different. weather tracking immigration or economics or something else. heather: i have monopolized you much too long. let us bring in the audience. if you can state your name and affiliation, we have microphones available. we will collect a few questions and let you weigh in. at the very end, we will get your prediction. with that, i saw a hand up here. thank you. questioner: tip gosh. i want to frame the question a little differently. if they vote goes through, the usage of potential rebalancing

of britain to the commonwealth, specifically canada, australia, and other countries. historically prior to the european union, that was the focus of british trade and investment. heather: wonderful. we will take that one right here. thank you. >> hi. my name is evan reed. one of the things you mentioned was that there would be this rally that the president is going to be participating in. i am in the process of putting together the visit, and i know nothing about such a rally. he will be having lunch with a green, a bilateral meeting with cameron, and a press conference. if there are questions about exit, he will express his views on that. he will be doing a public event as he does whatever he goes. as far as i know, the major theme is not the exit. i think maybe this rally idea

is a rumor that has been tarted because it seems like some people would be afraid of him coming in speaking although i am not sure why they would be. we recognize completely that this is a question for the british voters to decide. they will vote. we will not. however, you alluded to the fact that maybe none of our business. we do think it is our business because we think it has to do with strengthening the transatlantic relationship and the relationship between the u.s. and the u.k. so as british voters go on the 23rd and drop their ballots in the box, we would like them to be about to consider what their cousins across the ocean have to say. we are not planning on telling people how to vote. my question for you is can you give me examples of how it would be in the best interest f the united states of america for the u.k. to leave the eu?

thanks very much. heather: i think we will let you have added. dr. fox: first of all, there is an emotional attachment to the commonwealth in the u.k., but our external relations will have to be based on our national interests. that will be economics and trade. we will want to be able to exploit market as best we can. we want to free ourselves from as much european regulation as possible to give ourselves the maximum freedom to operate in a global market with huge opportunities. if you look at britain's trading performance at the countries where our trade is growing, the countries you see, obviously china and india, as we are looking at our turkey and africa and australia, and none of the countries are in the european union the present time. i see it as a huge economic opportunity. it would require us to rebuild our diplomatic services, which have been increasingly swallowed up into the european

union's service and i think that would be a good thing because i want us to be free to project our own values as widely as possible. that is more possible in some ountries than others because of a historic linkages with the u.k., which many countries face. i like to hear there is no rally. that is the best news i have heard today. not because i think it will help you remain campaign anyway but it would have been a terrible breach of protocol. do however go back to the point i made. the arrangements for the european union in terms of loss of sovereignty, lawmaker, border control our arrangements the united states would never tolerate for the united states.

being told we should stay in an arrangement that is so optimal for the u.k. because it might sue the u.s. is not an argument that will be done well. with you to make decisions that are good for us. our allies need to learn to live with those decisions whatever they turn out to be. it will give potential new impetus to the political elements of nato. we will not be so tied into contests of european foreign security policy, which i think are usually overblown. -- hugely overblown. i think it will give britain a chance to develop as an exporting and importing market and in the global economy in ways. we are being lowered with interferences in our market performance. when you look at the laws the european union is stacking up, for the impediments to our concept the free market goes.

i am a conservative free-market liberal. i have not a social democrat, nd i don't want to live in a social democratic european dictated economy, which i think is clearly failing. the direction of travel will continue to do so. we want to be free from those restrictions. i think one of the reasons it will benefit the u.s. is that will apply soccer of each of -- shock therapy to the european union. the european union. it was aged unless you want to lose other free market members, you better start reforming. i will tell you an anecdote as to why that is important. i was in an event in bruges before the last european union and i said to them more than a third of european voters at these elections are either going to vote for parties that will want to leave the european union or destroy the european union with the rise of the political right in the political left. i said there's this trend not

where you? -- does this trend not worry you? d the answer was tipically a certain view. if one third want to destroy it, that means two thirds are happy. that is where we should continue at the present time. that logic says that until 15.01 if i want to destroy the entity, you would not listen to the voice of the opposition. that seems utterly crazy. that is the direction they are going in. a british exit will provide a shock to the body politics in europe to show that what happens when members become disillusioned with the project. i see that as a huge benefit to the people of the european union as well because despite what the prime minister and other say, there is no reformed european union offer in this referendum. heather: the question is does it matter to the british people and the american president thinks it should or should not

do? for me, that is the challenge is thinking through how president obama will frame this. e already know we want a strong u.k. and strong eu, but does it matter what america thinks? [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] fil under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 653, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2745 to amend the clayton act and the federal trade commission act to provide that the federal trade commission shall exercise authority with respect to mergers only under the clayton act and only in the same procedural man ears the attorney general exercises such authority and providing for proceedings during the period from march 24,

2016, through april 11, 2016. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california, mr. royce, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4314 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. he clerk: h.r. 4314, a bill to provide a plan to combat travel by foreign fighters, establish minimum international border security standards, authorize the suspension of foreign assistance to countries not making significant efforts to comply with such minimum standards and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended? members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 370, the nays are two. 2/3 of those voting having esponded in the affirmative --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 371, the nays are two. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will but is -- now entertain requests for -- the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute peeches.

for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? will members please take their conversations off the floor. members, please take their conversations off the floor.

for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. paulsen: the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. will members please take their conversations off the house floor. the house will be in order. please take conversations off the house floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. paulsen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the heroics of plymouth's 17-year-old who was recently recognized with the citizens

award from plymouth fire officials. after hearing shouts of fire, he ran out of his apartment to see a fire spreading on the third floor of the complex and a woman on the second floor yelling for her. he was able to jump and pull himself up onto the second floor balcony and the third floor balcony with a fire extinguisher attacked -- atatched to his hips. he then was able -- attached to his hips. he then was able to extinguish the flames. when firefighters arrived they were flabbergasted that the 5 1/2-foot boy would be able to scale the building. mr. speaker, his selfless actions are heroic and brave and while our firefighters and departments do tremendous work, they can't be everywhere all the time. his quick thinking stopped a fire that could have been devastating to so many. his citizens award is well deserved. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members are advised to take their conversations off the house floor.

for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania eek recognition? mr. thompson: 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, i rise today in recognition of world down syndrome day, which seeks to draw awareness to down syndrome and how people with down syndrome play a vital role in our lives, our communities. all of us know someone who lives with down syndrome and we know that in spite of some extra challenges, they live full and robust lives surrounded by family and friends. in order to provide those living with down syndrome and other disabilities the best start possible, i was happy to co-sponsor, along with the majority of my colleagues in the house, the achieving a better life experience or able act. which was signed into law in 2014. this law empowers people with disabilities and their families to create a flexible account to

help save for medical and dental care, education, community-based employment, community-based support, training, housing and transportation. my office participates in a congressional internship program for individuals with intellectual disabilities. this program, which is a partnership with george mason university, gives students with intellectual disabilities an opportunity to gain congressional work experience. we welcome several bright yng men and women who have made significant contributions to our office and i'm proud to participate in this vital program. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: 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 minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, the president's failing visit to cuba was dismissed by the communist foreign minister who declared, quote, under no circumstances is the realization of internal changes in cuba on the negotiating

table, end of quote. since the president's outreach to the castro dictatorship, the consequence has been a surge in dissident arrests of patriots who overestimated the hope and change that a relationship might bring. sadly, by doing business with the castro regime, the benefits of trade will not reach the cuban people. it will enrich the cuban military, which stole about 70% of companies in the most profitable industries. this failure follows the iranian nuclear deal, providing over $100 billion to a regime that proclaims death to america and death to israel. by failing to stop isil-daiish, the president's legacy has led to syrians fleeing and children drowning at sea. chemical weapons attacks, killing iraqi children in their homes. the president can still change course to promote a strong america, with peace through strength. 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: for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? mr. guinta: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. guinta: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize a new hampshire hero. conaway steve steiner, an emergency medical technician, has devoted his life to helping others. a offduty in manchester one day he noticed a commotion. a car had stopped in traffic. steven saw that the man behind the wheel had lost consciousness. he pulled the man from his car and successfully administered c.p.r. not once but twice after the man had lost consciousness a second time. he had overdosed unfortunately on heroin. steven, who lost his own son to an oxycontin overdose, saved that man's life. abc news happened to be there to document new hampshire's fight against opiates and heroin, capturing the life or death moment. steven is a credit to the granite state. he started dads and moms

against drug dealers to stop the spread of opiates and heroin in our great state of new hampshire. most heroin enters our countries a cross the southern border where i'll visit this april to investigate. as steven knows from experience, we must stop deadly drugs like heroin from entering our country just as we must help those who are struggling with this addiction and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to ask for the support and help of my colleagues, to preserve a very special place in my community known as casper range. it is 7,000 acres of chi with a want desert wilderness where you have unique floora and fauna and human history dating back to 10,000 years before our time. these 7,000 acres are a jewel to our binational region of 3 million people and a -- he

three million people and a treasure to the united states. for that reason i ask the congress to join my community in its grassroots efforts to preserve the range as a national monument so this generation and those that follow can enjoy this national treasure in perpetuityy. with that, i yield back -- perpetuity. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask false consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: a long-range missile test, 15 other missile launches, the test of a so-called hydrogen bomb and threats to destroy han mat -- manhattan. this is north korean sabers rattling in 2016 alen. it is probably safe to assume the iranians were on site as witnesses of the latest violation of international law. why? because the iranian scientists