some diabetes is caused by drinking and overweight and so forth. guest: good question. in new york, we had a law for a long time predating the aca which said if he had a priest in condition, the health insurance company has to cover you. but they will only cover you for the factors relating to the pre-existing condition six or nine months after you walk in. the idea is -- just like homeowners. you cannot call the insurance company and say cover my house the day after a tree falls on it. so the incentives put in the aca, that is why they try to force everyone to get coverage. but that wrought alternative problems. host: john faso is our guest, the new conversation from the 19th street of new york. early start in the u.s. house,

gaveling in to overturn a measure promulgated in the obama administration. you will see "washington journal" tomorrow morning at 8:00. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy:, let us pray. we give us thanks, o god, for giving us another day. there have been -- you are the source of life and love. hear the prayers of congress, both for the good of this nation and the good of humanity around the world. help this congress and the president to discern your will

in our day. by drawing on the truth taken from a diversity of opinions, may a solid foundation be formed which a stable future may build. may short-term gains or self-interest never prove to be an obstacle to true vision. rather, lord, grant depth, perceptions, clear aalcy, and creative response to the needs of our time for solidifying the common good. while we freely choose to be your people and act accordingly. and finally, may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the and ay's proceedings announces to the house his approval there of. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing

to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question son agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have t the journal stands approved. the gentleman from illinois. >> mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are pow opponentsed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. mr. garamendi: 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 lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on february 3, 2017, at

8:11 a.m. that the senate agreed to without amendment house joint resolution 41. signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests one minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlelady from knack north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. randy wine garten of the american federation of teachers spoke recently on valuing the input of parents in building great public schools. but the actions of one a.f.t. affiliate stands in stark contrast to that vision. as chicago resident michael herseth sandlinnershot explained in the "wall street journal," his daughter's elementary school was forced to lay off its librarian last year. fortunately, parents stepped up and volunteered their time to keep the library opened. unfortunately the chicago teachers union shut down the

parents' plan and the library along with it. it seems anything that weakens union control over the school must be stopped, even if it denies students access to their library. how shameful. if we want to build great public schools, then we must work with parents not against them. so let's work together. congress, the new administration, and the american public to empower parents and help all children receive an excellent education. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina yield back the balance of my 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 from california is recognized for one minute. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, feast or famine. california for five years had a famine of, a water famine, now we have a feast. i want to shout out to the army corps of engineers to the local flood control districts in my

district, the sacramento, the district i share with mr. lamalfa, and other flood control districts. despite the heavy water flows, the levees have held. i ask all my colleagues here in the house and over in the senate to keep in mind that we need more flood protection all across this nation otherwise there will be great suffering. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. 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. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. speaker. this week many people and leaders from the u.s.a. and around the world convernal on the national d.c. for the national prayer greck breakfast. a tradition started 65 years ago. to take time to come together as leaders and a people in prayer and fellship. the bipartisan effort, ideally a nonpartisan coming together. some might say a bunch of politicians coming together,

well -- some very powerful testimonies come from this time together. this year from right here in this builds, senate chal lynn, who served as a navy admiral, gave a strong message on the power of prayer that our prayers are heard in heaven. two years ago an amazing humble personal testimony delivered by nascar race driver darell wall trip had everyone talking later. enjoy that personal message of the lows and highs, lows and highs of fame and celebrity and you need god in your life. this can also happen and does in local communities as tens of thousands of prayer breakfasts happen on the national day of prayer, which this year will be may 4 as it is always the first thursday of may as proclaimed by president reagan. i urge you as americans if you don't have them in your community, start one, if you do, please participate. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek wreck -- recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today to speak out against president trump's muslim ban. an executive order that emboldens our enemies, undermines our alliances, and offends our american values. this ban has among other things blocked visas for interpreters from the middle east. people who risk their lives to save american lives. when i was deployed to afghanistan as an intelligence officer, i worked with many interpreters, and at first i realized they not only provided accurate information, they kept us safe. as time went along, and i got to know them, what i came to realize they were the ones who were unsafe. they were the ones who were risking their lives to save our lives. so i -- when i get to know them i would ask them, why are you taking this risk? why are you doing this? and the reason they gave me was similar to the one my grandfather gave me, my italian immigrant grandfather, as to

why he came here to america back in 1921. and that is they came here to give their children a better life. mr. speaker, to me that is the definition of the american dream. president trump's executive order not only makes us unsafe, it is against our fundamental values. if people are willing to take risks for the american dream, we don't stop them. we welcome them. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to a stalwart public servant, dan halliburton started his career as a law enforcement officer, eventually retiring in 2009 from the ohio state highway patrol with over 32 years of service. he didn't stop there. he felt the call to serve more and in 2010 dan joined my team tasked with representing the

largest geographical and most rural district in the state of ohio. very quickly he distinguished himself as a man of and for the people. mr. johnson: he expertly-ily managed my transportation so we could be out amongst the people i represent. he built lasting relationships with local elected officials, law enforcement, and business owners. what set dan apart was his genuine care and concern for the people of appalachia. it was reflected in the high level of service he provided them. on behalf of the hardworking people of eastern and southeastern ohio, godspeed to dan and his family as he begins his well deserved retirement w that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, too many of our veterans struggle to find a job despite their unique leadership abilities and proven skill

sets. at the same time, i hear from small businesses that our economy's skills gap is widening. manufacturers want to hire but positions sit unfilled because they cannot find qualified workers. that's why i am proud to introduce this week the g.i. internship program act. the bill brings together these two sides, veterans and small businesses. mr. schneider: to bridge the skills gap and exspanned the job opportunities available to those who serve our nation. since 1944 we have committed to providing our returning military men and women a quality education. but not every lesson is best learned in the classroom. this legislation allows veterans to receive their post-geffen g.i. bill benefit as a stipend whale parg in a one-year internship or apprenticeship at no additional cost to taxpayers. i am proud to introduce this bipartisan bill with my colleague from florida, congressman ted yoho. i encourage our colleagues to join us in support of our veterans and manufacturers on

this win-win commonsense legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> 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 from mississippi is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today i'm humbled to rise in memory of army sergeant first class sean cooley. he was my friend and on this day in 2005 he paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect our country. it was a privilege to serve with him during our deployment and operation iraqi freedom three. he was assigned to the mississippi army national guard's company b, 150th engineer battalion headquartered in mississippi. he and operation iraqi freedom three. gave his life when an i.e.d. detonated near him on february 3 of 2005, while on combat mission in babble province, iraq. he was the 155th, first soldier

lost in the dixie thunder brigade to sacrifice his life in iraq and the 21st soldier with mississippi ties to die in the war on terror. mr. kelly: he followed the footsteps of both his grandfathers by serving gave hi u.s. navy. he's joined the see bees in 1991 and later joined the mississippi national guard in 1997. he was a platoon sergeant in b company 150th engineer battalion, 155 brigade combat team that included 3,500 mississippians. he was a great n.c.o., great leader, and great soldier both on and off the battlefield. while serving in the mississippi guard, he obtained degree and became an r.n. in 1996. his commitment to care for the needs of others will always be remembered as remembered by his commander who said, he was sick and down at one time during a training incident. he gave him both medicine and water to make sure he took care of him. sergeant first class cooley will forever be remembered for

his random acts of kindness. his mother says her husband, jerry, and their son, and his wife could not be more proud of his devotion to the military service and this nation. sergeant cooley embodied the characteristic that made him a great leader, soldier, and american. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi yield back the balance of my time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? america online i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to voice my strong opposition to plumb's -- president trump's ban on the entry of refugees from around the world, as well as the ban on refugees and citizens from seven select countries. this ban whether temporary or not is shameful and wholly un-american. there are better ways to protect our nation. ways that are effective and stay true to our american values. for example, in the 1970's and 1980's, thousands of my constituents fled the horrors

of war and genocide in vietnam and in cambodia as refugees. today these immigrants and their children are doctors, lawyers, teachers parents, students all intergrat to the success of our nation. america has long endured as the shining beacon on the hill. sadly, that light was dimmed by the president's immigration executive order. our nation is great because it's been built by refugees and immigrants from every part of the world. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. carter: mr. speaker, i rise today to remember mrs. emily hart of saint simons island, georgia, who passed away on monday, january 23, of 2017. she was 82 years of age.

she was born in 1934 to her parents, emily and edwin dribble in washington, d.c., where her father worked as an editor of the old "washington star" newspaper for nearly 40 years. she spent her early education in washington, d.c., before she moved on to vaster college in new york city where she studied political science. . she spent her time bettering the community. in washington she was a proud member of the national cathedral foundation and national preservational historical society. and she joined the coastal georgia historical society, was a dehe vout member of the christchurch federica and worked with the land trust which preserves the natural beauty and improved the quality of life in the community. although she was always aiding the community, her greatest joy came from her family which included her husband, retired colonel nick hart, her three

children and seven grandchildren. her sharp wit, passion for learning and detailed stories of the past of what will be remembered most dearly. i'd like to express my condolences to ms. hart's family for their loss. she will be missed. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker, i have spoken on the house floor on science topics. modern society depends on science. farmers are able to feed much of the world's current population because of science. without science we would further strip our forests and pollute even more of our precious water supplies and our nation has the strongest military in the world because of science. but science allows far more than just furthering our survival. it provides leisure, communications and all things internet. today we depend on the science of yesterday and tomorrow

society will depend on the science of today. if we care about the short and long-term future, then we need to support scientific research. we need to encourage collaboration with science of our nations. we need an open and competitive science environment, and we need to make sure all americans have a basic understanding of science. science is a part of our nation's critical infrastructure, and i ask my colleagues to continue to support science funding to keep america great. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 74, i call up the house joint resolution 36, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 of united states code of the final rule of the bureau of land management relating to waste prevention, production subject to royalties and resource conservation and ask for its immediate consideration.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: house joint resolution 36, joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8, title 5 of united states code of the final rule of the bureau of land management relating to waste prevention, production subject to royalties and resource conservation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on house joint resolution 36. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: with that i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: you know, for the last decade, there has been an ongoing renaissance in the united states in energy production. it has changed our geopolitics. our economy has been strengthened. our security has been enhanced, and there have been thousands of new good-paying jobs that have been created from it. this energy boom, according to

a 2015 survey, has saved the american family around $1,000 a year, and this growth of the last decade has come in spite of consistent anti-energy policies of the previous administration. it is especially hit those of us in the west very hard. those who are public land states in the west who use our resources to fund our infrastructure and pay for our schools and our essential government services. this rule allegedly to help the environment actually is designed to stop production and therefore it becomes a prime candidate for a repeal under the congressional review act that was passed into law in 1996 and signed by president clinton. at that time, clinton said this is a great way for congress to be held accountable and it truly is, that any rule is subject to this rule if it has one of three criteria. either one, excessive costs. two, it was done beyond the particular agency's statutory authority. or number three it is

duplicative or unnecessary or rebunddundant. and with this particular rule -- redundant. and with this particular rule it's the trifecta. it offends all of those criteria. the clean air act gives the environmental protection agency's working with states the authority to develop issues and regulations addressing air quality. the bureau of land management does not, and they're the ones who instituted this particular rule. in fact, the contortions b.l.m. went through to say they had the legal authority is almost embarrassing. the contortions they went through would qualify for an opening act on the las vegas strip. but instead, it reminds us of when b.l.m. came up with a hydraulic fracturing rule and only to be rebuked by the courts for simply doing what they did outside their delegated authority, and this is the same thing. this is an illegal rule, and it's a costly one. our effort to educate our children, to build infrastructure, to provide essential government services,

in other words, to make people's lives better depend on our ability to deal with resources this is a costly rule. on friday it was estimated by one sources it could cost $20 billion, it could cost states up to $6 billion and cost the federal government $600 million in royalties a year. it is a costly rule and a totally unnecessary rule. without this rule, the american energy industry will continue to do what they have done for well over a decade, reduce methane emissions on their own by investing in technology that not only helps the environment but helps them grow their business, leading to more jobs for americans, more funding for state education programs and infrastructure. in 2005 -- since 2005, methane emissions have actually decreased even as production has increased, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that this progress will suddenly stop because we strike this unnecessary rule, this

illegal rule, this totally redundant rule. there are some who will say, well, we need this rule to protect the taxpayers because we're burning up the royalty payments. oh, really? if one looks at the actions of b.l.m., their management -- their lease cancellation, pulling acreage at the last minute, reducing agency actions, you'll realizing saving taxpayers is not the real thing. either you can build pipelines to capture it and use it for the betterment of mankind, unfortunately, the agencies in the last administration refused to do that. even though legally they had to make decisions on pipelines within 60 days, there is not a single office of b.l.m. anywhere in the nation that was meeting that legal guideline, that legal deadline. instead, it was months afterwards when nothing was happening. if you can't have the pipelines to move it away, you have to burn it. so if they won't give the

pipeline and now they're trying to stop the burning of it, the only other option is mott to drill at all. -- is not to drill at all. our policy should be to pund and make sure those pipelines and rights of ways are approved so we can capture the methane and use it for productive purposes. unfortunately, this rule's real goal is to do the third element, simply stop the production. it's counterproductive. i'm urging at all times to support this resolution because it will help people it will support people. this rule's repeal is a vote for people and making sure that their lives are better, not worse. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lowenthal: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this resolution which would waste resources, waste money, pollute our air and worsen the impacts of climate change.

when it comes to regulations that we should keep on the books, the b.l.m. methane waste prevention rule is a no-brainer. currently, oil and gas companies are venting, flaring or leaking hundreds of millions of dollars worth of natural gas each and every year. people listening at home may wonder, why would a company simply waste or burn off such a valuable resource? and the answer is simple. they want the oil and they want it now. to them the natural gas that comes along with the oil is just a nuisance, so they burn it off. they don't make the effort required to ensure their equipment isn't leaking. the problem is is when they're operating on public lands, this isn't their natural gas to waste. this -- they cannot waste this. this belongs to the american

people. so when gas is simply burned off or allowed to escape, the royalties that are owed to the american people are gone with the wind. and instead of generating electricity or heating our homes, this wasted resource generates pollutions and heats our planet. for people who live near oil and gas wells, this is not just a climate problem. methane contributes to low level ozone, which causes a number of health problems such as shortness of breath, more frequent asthma attacks and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. and when the methane leaks, you also get leaks of benzene, a known carcinogen, and other volatile and organic materials that further contributes to ozone and smog and can contribute to liver and kidney damage, nausea and other health problems. now, my friends on the other

side say this is exactly the problem. the bureau of land management is trying to regulate air pollution, and that's the job of the environmental protection agency. the fact is, though, that the bureau of land management has very clearly written a waste prevention rule as they are authorized and required, and i state that again. authorized and required to do under the mineral leasing act. section 30 of the mineral leasing act says, and i quote, each lease shall contain provisions for the purpose of ensuring that the exercise of reasonable diligence, skill and care in the operation of said property, a provision that such rules for the safety and welfare of the miners and now, i quote, and for the prevention of undo waste as may be prescribed by the said secretary shall be observed.

the b.l.m. simply did its job by writing this rule, and now that they've done the job that congress required of them, the majority is attempting to argue that congress never gave the b.l.m. that job in the first place. if you look at the statute, that claim is clearly an alternative fact. just because preventing the waste of methane helps keep our air clean and moderates the severity of climate change, that doesn't mean the b.l.m. is doing anything outside of their authority. b.l.m. is not regulating the quality of the air around oil and gas sites. it's just trying to make sure that methane stays out of the atmosphere and gets into the marketplace. another argument you heard from the majority is that this is an effort to shut down oil and gas production on federal lands. it's just another salvo in their war which they claim is the obama war on energy.

except that that's simply not true. i'm almost tired of having to say this but the production of federal on-shore oil went up not a little bit. it went way up under president obama. up by 71%, as a matter of fact, between 2009 and 2015. now, would this methane waste prevention rule hurt production? would it drive operators off federal lands? to answer that let's just take a look at one of our states, olorado, which in early 2014 enacted methane venting and flaring regulations that the b.l.m. used as a model in writing its own rule. i want to state this real clearly that after colorado enacted their methane regulations, their production went up. 2014, and 2013 to

another 32% in 2015. and colorado oil production from federal lands is up 28% over the past five years also. clearly strong methane waste regulations do not scare away oil and gas companies. what about the claim that companies have to burn off natural gas because the b.l.m. takes too long to process pipeline applications? well, if we look at a recent report from the government accountability office just from ast year, they found that only 9% of flaring was due to the lack of pipelines. 91% had nothing to do with pipelines. how about the point that's made that the oil and gas companies

insist they're making great strides in reducing their own methane emissions so they don't need additional oversight? members, that's a myth as well. oil and gas producers in the field emit 45% more methane in 2014 than they did in 1990. in fact, methane emissions from il and gas producers went up 21% in the past 24 years. . the majority also says this is a power grab. an effort by b.l.m. to take power away from the states. except that the b.l.m. has regulated venting and flairing since the carter administration. this has not stopped states from setting their own regulations as i have just said that colorado has done. which they will still be free to do under this rule. in fact, despite all the complaints about one size fits all regulations, companies

still have to follow state regulations when they operate on federal land. mr. speaker, none, and i repeat that, none of these arguments against the regulation hold any water. but the benefits of this regulation would be huge. enough gas saved to supply up to 740,000 households each year. a reduction of an estimated 180,000 tons of methane emissions, which would have the same impact as taking nearly one million cars off the road. up to $14 million each year to the american taxpayer. from additional royalties, and that number could be even larger if the price of natural gas increases, which the majority is trying to do by

expediting natural gas exports. the b.l.m. waste prevention rule, methane waste prevention rule is, is a win for the taxpayer, a win for the environment, a win for the climate, and a win for common sense. that's why it's supported by over 80% of voters in western states, including both democrats and republicans, according to a poll just released this week. if my colleagues have not seen that poll, i would be happy to share it with them. unfortunately, the republican anti-regulatory, anti-taxpayer, anti-health, anti-environment machine must be continually fed. earlier this week they voted to strip clean water and transparency regulations. today they are going after clean air. i ask my colleagues to stand up

and put a stop to this. to speak for the ordinary americans who don't own oil and gas or coal companies and who donate immense and which -- and donate se companies immense sums of money to politicians. to say that the industry has to do its share and not simply demand that the farmers, the do immense sums ranchers, the sportsmen, the conservationists, and all the rest of us have to put up with their waste in the name of higher profits. i ask my colleagues to do this by voting no on house joint resolution 36. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from new mexico, who is in a state that knows exactly what this means to his state and the state's economy, mr. pearce. i yield him three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. pearce: thank you, mr. speaker.

new mexico gets 40% of its state's revenues from oil and gas. that is 40% of our teacher's pay. 40% of our government institution's law enforcement. hospitals, 40%. so when the federal government begins to adjust the rules, we in new mexico take an interest because it provides our jobs, it provides the way we educate our children. we have two points of view being postulated on this argument nationwide. he one says that the government is suddenly becoming the model of efficiency. i wonder where that efficiency is with regard to the $200 billion of fraud in social security, medicare, and medicaid. the government hasn't suddenly

gotten efficient about that. or just your local post office, as it suddenly got efficient about that? or you could listen to the argument that the government is suddenly interested in the environment and we're going to make it clean. the b.l.m. did not say a word when the gold king mine still spil was allowed to not only allowed but mandated to be turned loose by the e.p.a., the heavy metals ran down across those public lands, currently sit in the stream beds of new mexico -- stream beds of new mexico, and our friends say the government is suddenly all worried about the environment. when you look specifically at the venting and flaring rule, we're told that oil and gas production went up dramatically in the last years. the truth is when you dissect it down oil and gas production on private lands went up dramatically. oil and gas on public lands,

the government lands owned by the b.l.m. and other agencies, went down dramatically. so when the b.l.m. decided to go and control the venting and flaring of gases, then we in new mexico looked and said, is it the government being more concerned about us, or is it one more wink and nod to the special interest who want to kill the industries. they already succeeded in killing the timber industry in this did. they have the coal industry on its back. and they want to kill the oice and gas industry that provides the jobs in in n yes, we have an opinion about that. oil and gas production again educates our kids. oil and gas production provides our jobs. it provides the way of life that we in this country are looking for. we contribute heavily to that. but we don't stand silently when the government suddenly decides our best interests are at stake.

now, we could go through-- the speaker pro tempore: additional 30 seconds. mr. pearce: we could go through all the examples. the truth is many reports say that over 3/4 of the marginal wells, those are the ones in new mexico, we have the stripper wells, marginal wells. they will be shut-in by this action. going to take money away from our state government. you're going to take jobs away from the people. and i support the resolution. we should back this regulation off. cut the red tape that is starving america's jobs out of this country. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from massachusetts, congresswoman tsongas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. ms. tsongas thank you, mr. lowenthal. i rise in strong opsoigs to this resolution and efforts to

roll back important protections for not only our environment but for american taxpayers. our nation's public lands belong to all americans. and they are managed to balance many competing uses -- recreation, responsible economic development, sustainable resource extraction. yes, renewable energy. and military purposes and conservation of historic american landscapes just to name a fue. as such they should be subject -- a few. as such they should be subject to strong national standards that protect our shared water, shared land and wildlife, and the multiple uses they support. it is also critical to remember the use of our public land is a privilege not a right. and companies seeking to exercise that privilege, whether they be fossil fuel companies or clean energy companies developing wind, solar, and geothermal projects, should be held to a very high standard to preserve and

protect resources that belong to all of the american people. we must also make sure that the taxpayers get a fair return for use and development of our commonly shared resources. the mineral leasing act as written by congress calls upon the secretary of interior to prevent the waste of oil and gas resources on public lands. the bureau of land management's methane waste rule achieves all of these shared goals. the rule prevents the waste of resources that belong to all american people, which by law it is required to do. it reduces the amount of greenhouse gas pollution coming off our publicland, and it increases royalty payments to federal taxpayers and the states. the methane waste rule also supports job creation. an american innovation in new technologies. the methane mitigation industry is a growing and emerging field that uses modern technologies to identify and capture wasteful emissions.

in fact, a 2014 report commissioned by the environmental defense fund, found that methane mitigation companies provide jobs in 46 states, support 102 manufacturing and assembly locations, with 59% of all companies across the industry being small businesses. if republicans had brought this resolution before the house natural resources committee, we could have more thoroughly examined its negative impacts on job creation. instead, it was rushed to the house floor with only this one hour of debate. i urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from massachusetts yield back the balance of my time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. lamborn: mr. speaker, perhaps no aspect of america's economy has been as overregulated as energy under the obama administration. so this week the house has already acted to repeal two of

the most damaging energy regulations. this morning we continue the fight to reduce the unnecessary regulatory cost that is are passed along to all americans by refeeling the bureau of land management's venting and flaring rule. some estimates show that this rule could inflict staggering costs of $1.26 billion on national, state, and local economy, while generating less than $4 million in new royalties. in addition, the legal basis for this rule is tenuous at best. the clean air act authorizes the e.p.a. not b.l.m. working in conjunction with states to make rules affecting air quality. the b.l.m.'s venting and flaring rules' extreme compliance cost will force many companies to shut-in their wells rather than continue to operate them. this will be particularly true for marginal wells that are often run by family-owned businesses. and beyond the loss of jobs in colorado and elsewhere, state and federal governments would lose up to $114 million in tax

receipts. this is money that states like colorado depend on for funding education and other critical services. the increase in natural gas production is to the benefit of everyday americans. the u.s. energy boom saved drivers $550 fuel-n fuel costs eachor -- in -- in fuel costs each year. affordable environmentally responsible energy development is critical to the u.s. economy, but this rule is a needless burden on american families. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the joint resolution of disapproval. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i just want to be very clear about the situation on pun lick lands -- public lands, because there are a lot of misleading statements being thrown about. we have heard that the majority insist that is oil and gas

production is -- on federal lands is down. to support this they often show misleading charts. they compare apples to oranges or use visual tricks to hide the facts, the facts are federal on-shore oil production 2009 and between 2015. all the panic that we have heard for years that president obama is trying to shut down oil and gas was based on as much reality as the claim that he was coming to get everyone's guns. i'll say it again. there was a 71% increase in oil production on-shore federal lands under president obama's watch. and it is the oil producers that are wasting and leaking methane at a faster and faster rate since it's not a product

they care about. they just want the oil. with an unfortunate likely return to a drill at all cost mentality under president trump, we need the b.l.m. methane waste prevention rule more than ever. i urge my colleagues to defeat house joint resolution 36 and support cutting down on methane waste. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from colorado, who also understands this issue because it's part of the livelihood of his constituency, mr. tipton, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. tipton: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i know i and many of my colleagues share concern about a federal regulatory code that has become so bloated with redundant, ineffective, and unnecessary rules that the shear bulk of it threatens to

sufficient gate american economic recovery and long-term prosperity suffocate american economic recovery and long-term prosperity. this is one such example of duplicative and unnecessary regulation. aside from the fact that the authority to regulate air quality does not rest with the b.l.m., we certainly don't need the b.l.m. rule in addition to the e.p.a. methane rule and state regulations which our colleagues on the other side have noted and lauded that have come out of the state of colorado. . the supposed benefits of the rule will be emissions reductions in the neighborhood .001%. than that is the definition of an ineffectual rule. the oil and gas industry would prefer to economically capture and sell that resource rather

than vent or flair it. instead of using its authority to take actions that would effectively facilitate capture versus venting or flaring like processing pipeline right of way permits in a timely manner, the agency has once again issued a rule that unnecessarily burdens energy development. there are cost-effective strategies available that will achieve emission reductions, and it is those strategies that we should focus our efforts on rather than duplicative regulations. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lowenthal: mr. speaker, how much time do i have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from utah has 17 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we heard a lot about from members of colorado out how onerous this methane

rule will hurt industry in colorado. i would like to read from a couple of colorado editorials hat came out this past week in support of maintaining the b.l.m. methane rule. on saturday, "the denver post" posted an editorial entitled "congress shouldn't butcher federal methane rules." in it they say, and i quote, congress is getting ready to use an ax when it needs a scalpel, and make no mistake, mr. speaker, the congressional review act is an ax. it's an ax being swung blindfolded after several shots of whiskey. it shows a complete lack of seriousness on the issue, and it could have serious long-term consequences.

that is why "the denver post" editorial board asks republicans to be surgeons and not butchers and to avoid repealing what they call a thoughtful regulation. this past week another editorial was published on wednesday by "the grand nction, colorado -- by the grand junction, colorado "daily sent national" saying stop leaks. they say we are fortunate to have the rule in colorado, but if the federal rule isn't enforced, the results can undermine our own gains. air quality does not recognize state lines. nderregulated drilling in utah produces bad air that blows into the western slope communities. these editorial boards have

seen firsthand that methane waste prevention rules work and they know that it's in everyone's interest to keep the b.l.m. rule in place. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i'm pleased to authorize or recognize the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the measure for congressional disapproval of the b.l.m.'s methane rule under this congressional review act. this egregious rule passed in the last few days of the previous administration is yet another regulatory blow to responsible energy development on lands held by the federal government for the american people. i think the american people have a right to be -- expect their federal government is not only holding these lands but that it's utilizing this asset

that could gain income on the federal government on their behalf to maintain more lands and also to utilize the energy at low cost from domestically produced energy. it comes from their lands instead of importing it from somewhere else, etc. it goes without question the benefits here in this country is a giant benefit to the u.s. and the economy. this, i ng opponent of think it will transform our energy infrastructure. domestically produced energy has so many positive effects it should be a no-brainer. the b.l.m. claims this rule helps capture methane waste and reduce greenhouse reduction. let's report the gas. methane emissions have decreased by 38% in the last 10 years while gas production on federal lands has increased by 33%. believe it or not, this reduction was done through

voluntary action on behalf of the industry in capturing and utilizing this asset. even in my home state of california, oil and gas industry has created a tremendous opportunity for our work force. a recent report shows that total contributions from oil and gas in california in 2013 resulted in the creation of 455,000 jobs and $72 billion in value added to the state economy. approximately 3.4% of state g.d.p. indeed, no small numbers when the state of california is in big trouble fiscally as it per sues more things like high-speed rail and other nonsense. stifling this economic driver in this state will make us more reliant on energy frun stable regions of the globe. and the higher costs to consumers at home and in their workplace. furthermore, the b.l.m. claims it has authority under existing law to regulate oil and gas

emissions. such authority belongs to the e.p.a. and the states under the clean air act, not the b.l.m. indeed, the b.l.m. needs to get its priorities and its jurisdiction in order. the agency spends valuable taxpayer resources developing a rule to prevent methane flaring yet denies rice of way for pipelines that would eliminate this altogether. that's the important part of the congressional review act is accountability. failure to reverse this rule would result in a net loss in royalties that would be negative impact not just to the federal government but indian tribes as well which rely on energy revenue to meet their health care, housing and other needs of their members on their lands. abuses and overreach by previous obama administration have gone on long enough. it's time to put an end to end these regulations.

that administration taking credit for increased gas production is disingenuous as most of it occurred on private lands leaving our public assets and potential -- mr. bishop: an additional 30 seconds. mr. lamalfa: that would be a loss for the american public to continue that path. mr. chairman, i appreciate the efforts in bringing this forward and the opportunity to have a congressional review act for the accountability. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, i'd like to reinforce a point that i made in my opening statement. oil and gas companies and the industry would like to say they've done a tremendous job cutting methane emissions on their own. in fact, just this week the western energy alliance spearheaded a letter saying, and i quote, methane emissions from oil and gas production have declined by 15% since 1990

without any federal regulations. what we've been hearing today and my friends on the other side is continually using some variation of this reduction that they say occurs. the problem is, and i repeat, the problem is is that claim is just flat out false. that is the definition of an alternative fact. methane reduction since 1990 have come entirely from natural gas storage, from the distribution and the transmission of natural gas. out in the field, however, what we're talking about, out in the field where companies are actually drilling methane emissions are up. natural gas production, methane emissions are up by 31%. for oil production, emissions

are up a staggering 76%. mr. speaker, the industry has not fixed this problem on their own and they're not going to fix this problem on their own. only strong rules and oversight are going to hold companies accountable to reduce methane waste, and for that reason we must defeat this resolution. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i'm pleased to recognize for two minutes the gentleman from north dakota, mr. cramer, who lives in an area where he clearly derstands what this issue is about. mr. cramer: this is an overreach by the e.p.a. and the states. in north dakota, the department of mineral resources has waste prevention or conservation rules in place and is the first

in the nation to set gas capture requirements and goals. requiring operators to meet yet another set of rules in addition to states' permits results in substantial increases in both time and cost. without any additional benefit to the public or to the environment. and that would also subject operations to conflicting rules which actually could have the adverse effect that this rule aims at. just in north dakota alone, it's estimated this rule would st $24 million in lost tax revenue, tax revenue. $240 million per year would be lost in production, but $39 million, most importantly, would be lost to royalty -- in royalty revenues not to big rich oil companies who make large contributions as our friends on the other side likes to talk about but to regular people, farmers and ranchers and landowners who get the royalty. these are the very people the democrats love to talk about but don't seem to know how to

talk to. methane leaks are wasteful, but there is a natural incentive to capture it. methane is not a waste product. it's a commodity. the overall best-case scenario impact of this rule would be a reduction of .06% in reduction. now, if the b.l.m. really wants to do something they could streamline the permitting of the infrastructure that would capture it. i know of two pipeline projects in north dakota alone that had they been allowed to move forward at no expense to the government, had they been allowed to move forward by the b.l.m. without the heavy hand of regulation would have reduced emissions by 6%. 6% with the natural incentive stopped by the b.l.m. rather than this rule which would perhaps in the best-case scenario reduce it .06%. in wrapping up, mr. chairman, thank you for the time. thank you for your leadership on this. let's pass this c.r.a. and overturn this egregious,

unproductive b.l.m. rule and return the authority where it belongs, back to the states. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north dakota yields back. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, as i mentioned before, mr. speaker, this rule will not just reduce waste, increase taxpayer revenues, it will also reduce air pollution and improve public health. in support of that we received a letter this week from 13 medical and public health groups including the american lung association, the american public health association, the asthma and allergy foundation of america, the public health institute and many more pointing out the importance of the b.l.m. methane waste prevention rule for cutting down on harmful methane emissions. they write, we strongly urge

ou to oppose any congressional review act resolution of disapproval for the b.l.m. rule. they point to the volatile organic compounds that also commute the air when natural gas leaks saying that these chemicals, and i quote, include nzene, a known carcinogen, ethylbenzene, a neurotoxin that may also cause miscarriages and birth defects. also, these chemicals are, and i quote, precursors to the formation of ground level ozone, a dangerous air pollutant that causes permanent lung damage. by limiting emissions of volatile organic chemicals, oil

and natural gas limits will reduce the risk of ozone formation in the air and thus the risk of ozone-related health effects, including asthma attacks, hospital admissions and unfortunately premature death. these health impacts are just one more set of reasons why repealing the b.l.m. methane waste prevention rule is the wrong way to go. . thamming you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: my pleasure to recognize the gentleman from arkansas, let's do this up front, for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. westerman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. westerman: i thank the chairman. mr. speaker, american workers and american businesses are the most innovative and productive in the world. this is no more evident than in our oil and gas field, the ones in my district, my state, across our contry, and

offshore. mr. speaker, in spite of the obama administration's war on energy, our producers made huge gains in technology, production, and productivity to meet the needs and lower energy costs. the gentleman from california is correct. energy production has increased during the obama administration. according to this 2016 c.b.o. report, both oil and gas production has increased on state and private lands while both on shore and off shore, however during the same time under the heavy hand of the obama administration production on federal lands has decreased. the energy information agency reported that oil production on nonfederal lands has increased 89%, while it's decreased 10% on federal lands. while gas production has increased 37%% on nonfederal lands, and decreased 37% on

federal lands. the bureau of land management's venting and flaring rule is an overreach of the obama administration. this is not about the environment. it's about extending the war on energy to private and state lands. the rule increases costs on producers which are passed on to customers, stifling job growth, and hurting the economy. the b.l.m. as has already been said does not even have the legal authority to regulate air quality. it's an authority expressly provided to the e.p.a. by the clean air act. methane emissions are already on the decline, dropping 21% since 1990 to 2014. this drop occurred despite the rise in natural gas production by nearly 47%. if the venting and flaring rule goes into full effect, it will cost nearly $1 billion by 2025. the result of overregulation is a decrease in domestic energy production, lost jobs, a battered economy, and an increased dependence on foreign energy sources.

a repeal of the venting and flaring rule is necessary to protect our economy, the constitution, and the american people. and i urge my colleagues to support the resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. lowenthal: you know, mr. speaker, it may no longer be groundhog day, but it feels like we have been here doing the same thing over and over again. once again republicans are doing the bidding of wealthy fossil fuel companies at the expense of ordinary americans. on wednesday we were here so the majority could strip away clean water protections from coal mining. later on that day, the majority gave our new secretary of state , rex tillerson, the former c.e.o. of exxonmobil, a gift by repealing the requirement for oil and gas companies to tell

the public how much money they pay to foreign governments. now today we're here to shower more goodies on to the oil and gas industry by repealing a rule designed to keep them from wasting, and i urge -- hear that term, wasting natural gas and also polluting our air. really, mr. speaker? less than two weeks into the new all republican government and they are already handing out early valentine's day gifts to their wealthy donors. instead of chocolates and flowers, they are giving their oil and coal executives the right to pollute our air. dump waste into our water. and do it all under the cover of darkness. republicans are using the congressional review act so fast that i doubt they even know what they are repealing from day-to-day.

it's friday so i guess it must be air pollution day. let me warn everyone that is watching this telecast that they are not going to stop at trying to destroy clean air, clean water, and transparency. dozens of health, safety, transparency, and consumer protections are on the chopping block, and republicans are more than happy to swing the ax. i urge my colleagues to protect the b.l.m. methane waste prevention rule and defeat this resolution and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i hate to interrupt a one-man show. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lowenthal: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves.

who seeks time? mr. bishop: i don't. i have the right to close and am ready. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lowenthal: mr. speaker, i would ask unanimous consent to submit two letters opposing this resolution and supporting the b.l.m. methane waste prevention rule into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lowenthal: the first is from 78 environmental conservation public interest, and sportsmans groups urging a no vote on this resolution. the second is a letter from 13 public health and medical organizations strongly urging a no vote on this resolution because of the damage that it will do to public health. hank you, mr. speaker. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized to close. mr. bishop: thank you.

i yield myself such time as i may consume. it won't be the nine minutes i have left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: much has been said about what colorado has been able to do as a state on this particular issue, and it's good, bus colorado as a state has legal responsibility and the legal authorization to work with the e.p.a. on this particular issue. and naturally industry would be liking that because the states are far more effective in dealing with industry than the b.l.m. ever is, which still does not have statutory authority in this particular area. in fact, even colorado has its limits when they were cut out of the process on the stream buffer rule we talked about earlier, they also joined the lawsuit against the e.p.a. and against the federal government for that particular issue. it is simply hypocritical for b.l.m. to pretend that this is about waste when they refuse to actually solve the problem by pipeline approval. and rights away approval which is the total solution.

what we come down to is simply this is a rule that violates all three of the criteria set forth in the congressional review act. it is a rule that's terribly expensive. it's a rule that's redundant. and a rule that exceeds the statutory authority of the entity that's making that particular rule. a prime candidate for use of the congressional review act, which is our responsibility. it's a congressional responsibility to establish the standards, not the executive branch agentcy. so i would -- agency. so i would simply ask if someone has decided not to vote for this resolution, to actually support this rule. i could ask what is the deciding factor that pushed them over into accepting that position? was it simply because this rule is redundant and unnecessary? that without this rule emissions were being lowered and they were lowered before this rule was implemented, and they will be lowered after this rule is decimated at the same time. is it because of the redundancy? did they decide to vote against

this particular rule because -- well, because of the cost increase they will bring. the idea that affordable energy is being harmed by this particular rule is real, and that means that any person, any person is going to feel an increased cost in their energy consumption, whether it's trying to heat his or her home or every time they turn on a bulb, this rule raise that is cost and once again it hurts the people who are at the bottom of our economic level, who are the most vulnerable to these kinds of increases. is that what decided you to vote against this resolution or tipped you in the balance of trying to support the rule? or is it simply the fact that it's an illegal rule? is that the defining issue. it's an illegal rule where they have no statutory authority to do what they did? if those criteria is not good enough, then i ask you and urge you to do something that actually helps people, real people, and helps reduce the cost of energy and makes sure

that we have affordable energy so this economic and energy renaissance that we have had in the last decade can continue and not just on state and private lands, but it can continue on federal lands as well, which it has not done. we need to do this to support people. we need to do this so that states can fund their infrastructure and states can actually fund their education system. and people can turn on the light bulb without having to take out the loan at the local bank to do so. this rule repeal is the right thing to do. you should vote yes on this resolution because it helps people. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 united states code of

the final rule of the bureau of land management related to waste prevention, production subject to royalties, and resource conservation. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the joint resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. it mr. lowenthal: mr. speaker, i request 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 by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , this 15-minute vote on passage of the joint resolution will be followed by a five-minute vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. if ordered. 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 -- on this vote the yeas are 221. the nays are 191. the joint resolution is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved.

the house will be in order. the house will be in order.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. embers please clear the wells. please clear the wells.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. conversations off the floor, lease.

members, please take your conversations off the floor. members, please take your conversations from the well, rom the floor.

the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask -- to speak sent out of order for one minute for purposes of inquiring of the

majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to my friend, mr. mccarthy, the majority leader from california. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, on monday, the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:00 p.m. on tuesday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. the last votes of the week are expected during the evening hours on tuesday. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. mr. speaker, the house will also continue our work under the congressional review act to undo onerous obama administration regulations through three more joint resolutions. the first sponsored by representative brett guthrie

will stop a rule that significantly expands the federal government's involvement in teacher education. without our action this could result in fewer teachers serving some of our nation's most vulnerable children. and it could make it harder for schools to recruit the best teachers. this is the exact opposite of what americans want for their children. the second sponsored by representative todd rokita would address how the every student succeed act is being implemented, this bipartisan law empowered states to hold schools accountable but somehow when the regulation came out there was an expanded federal role. this was not what congress intended nor was it best for our students. and the third, mr. speaker, sponsored by representative liz cheney addresses how the department of interior regulates resource management plans. these plans guide how b.l.m. manages all federal lands, but the rule only addresses how

b.l.m. must deal with the public as well as state and tribal government. we are rightfully concerned that there is no process of procedure for local governments in these new rules. finally, my friend may notice that a familiar face is not sitting next to me today, but ben howard is up in the gallery today. after serving eight years on capitol hill, the last six in my office, our friend, ben, has left the job. he's now working in the white house office of legislative affairs. ben was one of the first people we hired when i was elected majority whip. it was here that most people around the hill got to know ben through his always witte floor updates and always -- witty floor updates. when i was elected majority leader i asked ben to be floor director, a position he's served well for the last two-plus years. my friend would be happy to

know that ben is from maryland. he was born and raised and currently resides in olney. is that right? with his wife, amy, and their two young sons, john and daniel. so on behalf of our entire team and the entire republican conference, i want to thank ben for his years of service and wish him many years of happiness for his hard work. and i will yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for the schedule of regulations to come. i'm sure we'll have discussions about that next week. in fact, we're going to have some discussions about all of these regulations, which we believe reduce the protections accorded to the american people by a number of the regulations that are sought to be repealed.

however, first, mr. speaker, let me note that first of all we have another ben in maryland . he's the senior senator, a former colleague of ours, ben cardin, and he had a tv ad which ended with my friend ben, and i want to say hi to my friend, ben, who indeed as all of you know, i think the staff that served with us makes such an extraordinarily positive difference. and they sometimes -- most of the time rise above what might be the partisan confrontation that mbers have and continue to try to reach consensus so this institution will run positively and well for the american people. ben howard has been one of those people. know my floor director has

worked positively with ben through the years and appreciates very much his working with us. kelly, also, falls in that category. ben, we're going to miss you. i'm sure wherever you go you'll advantage the enterprise that ou associate with. olney, maryland, is one of our thriving communities in maryland. we're always proud of our marylanders and they always do a good job. so i will say to him, god speed. -- n't want to wish ben penn state a lot of success but i do wish you success. thank you very much for your service. now, let me move on to perhaps some subjects that we might not have as much agreement on as we do have on ben howard and his quality and service he's given this institution. one of the first acts of congress as you know, mr. leader, was the plan was to

begin the reconciliation process to repeal the affordable care act. the budget resolution set a deadline of january 27 for committees to report legislation repealing the law. it's now the third of february, and after voting 65 times to repeal the a.c.a., house and senate republicans, mr. speaker, do not have as far as i know and don't appear to have a replacement, as i read in the papers, mr. speaker, divided on the path forward. repealing the a.c.a. without replacing it immediately will not only cost 30 million americans to lose their coverage but it would increase the cost for tens of millions more and would, i suggest, advantage everybody who has insurance and clearly those who do not and would not have access. mark meadows chairs the house freedom 'cause -- caucus, and i quote, we need to slow down the

process so we can understand a little bit more the specifics and timetable of replacement votes and reconciliation instructions. that was in "politico" on january 9 of this year. senator bob corker of the senate said, and i quote, there's more and more concerns about not doing repeal and replace simultaneously. you would think after six years -- this is bob corker -- you would think after six years we would have a pretty good sense .f what we'd like to do we have not seen a repeal and replace bill. the president said it ought to be done contemporaneously. bob corker and others said it ought to be done contemporaneously. we have not seen it. so my question, mr. majority leader, does the gentleman know if the repeal moves forward that a replacement bill would

be considered simultaneously? and i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: well, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'm not quite sure at the beginning of your question either you wanted me to speed up or slow down but i thank the gentleman for the question. mr. hoyer: i can clarify that for the gentleman. mr. mccarthy: well, the simple fact is -- mr. hoyer: do you want me to clarify my question? mr. mccarthy: i heard your question. your question is asked both ways. regardless who won the presidency, obamacare is a failure. regardless who won the election, we would be sitting here with a question of what we would replace it with. let me talk about the facts. there were 23 co-ops created in obamacare. they were given $2 billion. as of today, 18 of them have failed. there is roughly a little more han 3,000 counties in america.

1,022 of those counties, oughly 1/3 now only have one insurance company. five states only have one insurance company thanks to obamacare. all of america knows the old quotes. if you like your health plan you could keep it. you know that's no longer true. or if you like your doctor you can keep him. that's no longer true. so regardless when the president said that our premiums would go down by $2,500, now we know that's not true. so, yes, we would have this discussion regardless who won this election. obamacare has failed. so, yes, we are going to work together just as after the last election is why i put a letter out to every governor, republican or democrat, every insurance commissioner, republican or democrat, to provide us with their ideas and we welcome every idea on the other side of the aisle too

because we will do this differently. we welcome your ideas as well. if you noticed on -- in the energy and commerce committee, they have the hearing scheduled. we will begin and it will be an open process and we welcome your participation because we want a system that works. we do not want to come back here and have a system that has failed, and i believe we have the ideas to make it work correctly. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. we are not in agreement, mr. speaker. what we would be doing would be 180 degrees different. we would not be pretending we're going to repeal an affordable care act that has been a success. we do not agree, mr. speaker, that having 30 million americans insured that were not

insured before the affordable care act is a failure. we do not agree that people with pre-existing conditions can now get insurance is a failure. we do not agree that people who are 26 or younger being on their family's policy when they don't have a job or alternative insurance is not a failure. we do not agree that americans having the security that their insurance will not be cancelled because they reached an annual limit is a failure. we do not agree that americans having no lifetime limits so they have a catastrophic illness they will still have courage, -- coverage, that is not a failure. what is a failure is to have pretended for the last six years that they wanted to repeal the affordable care act and have no replacement as of this time. that is a failure.

the president says, mr. speaker, that his plan is going to make sure that everybody is insured, comprehensive coverage, and the costs will come down. he, of course, mr. speaker, has effect ed a bill to that objective. we would welcome such a bill so we could consider it. no, mr. speaker, had the three million additional people who voted for hillary clinton, more so than voted for donald trump, prevailed, the electoral college prevailed, but the majority of the american people that voted in plurality voted to keep the affordable care act, as mrs. clinton said she would do if she were elected. so, mr. speaker, the majority leader is in deep error on we would be having the same debate.

e is right, we have an outcome of a party and a president who said they were going to repeal the affordable care act. g.o.p. conference chair cathy mcmorris rodgers stated, let me be clear, no one who has coverage because of obamacare today will lose that coverage. majority leader said something about the president saying if you like your policy you can keep it. in fact, the president was substantially right on that. yes, were there minimum coverage so that people weren't scammed by insurance companies in saying you got insurance but, oh, by the way, we don't cover that, by the way, we don't cover that, have you seen those ads about i bought a new car and i had a wreck a day later and guess what the insurance company wants to give me 80%, 90%, 70% less?

that's what the insurance companies were doing and people thought they had insurance for something and they didn't have it. so cathy mcmorris rodgers says, you're not going to lose anything. well, i don't know if it was so bad, why don't you repeal it? why don't you offer a bill to repeal it and undermine all those factors of the affordable care act that are now available to the americans that i suggested? president trump said this but i want to repeat it, said last month, republicans were nearing completion of an a.c.a. replacement that would provide insurance for everybody. bring it on. bring it on. insurance for everybody. let's see it. he went on to say, his plan would have lower numbers, much lower deductibles. god bless him. bring it on. let us see it.

let's vote on it. it's not on the floor, and i'm not sure when it will be on the floor but perhaps the majority leader can tell us. mr. mccarthy: if the gentleman will yield? mr. hoyer: i'm going to yield in just a second because my question to you is, when do you expect such a bill consistent with the president's representation to the american having verybody insurance and at lower costs and lower deductibles, when do we expect a bill on the floor like that and i yield to the majority leader? mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. and since obamacare has passed and now we know what was in it, you would know there are 1,400 pages in there that gives a great deal of power to the secretary of health and human services. unfortunately, today, that secretary has not been confirmed. that secretary is not confirmed simply because of politics.

it's not on my side of the aisle. it's on the democrats' side of the aisle over in the senate. you know how far they have gone or how much they really want to work on health care? well, you actually said it needs to be reformed, they wouldn't even show up in committee. so how much do they really care about americans? they don't even show up in committee to ask the question. they wanted to run and hide. . how much do they really want to work? if we want to go quote by quote, how do we go back to what president obama said when the premiums were going to clower by $2,500. what do we say to arizona when they went up 116%, or tennessee by 63%. then we go 3/4 of tennessee counties only have one provider. or minnesota by 59%. oklahoma, 59%. alabama, 58. pennsylvania, 53. nebraska, 51.

can we stop this rhetoric and can we now get to work? i will tell you this. next month is when we begin because i'm hopeful we'll no longer put up with the political games on the senate side. we will confirm the new secretary because you have to have a secretary in place if you want to reform obamacare because you gave so much power o the secretary. we all know that. so let's work together on behalf of the american people and end this pain. we all know that. i will tell you this, the unfortunate reality in today's system coverage does not always mean care. the deductibles are so high many people don't even go to their doctors. i can tell united states prior to obamacare, their high-risk pools were cheaper then for

their care than now just buying obamacare. we all know it's a failure. so let's stop playing the political games and let's put the people before politics and let's put a system that works. our door's opened. the committee is open for all ideas. and let's work together to solve it. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the majority leader for his comments. i don't think he wants me to delve very deeply into why we do not have a secretary -- health and human services. because the republicans have not produced nor has the nominee produced full disclosure, as the gentleman knows, of his financial dealings with respect to legislation that he introduced and supported. they want full information so that they can make a considered

judgment. i won't go further into that deep well, however. but i will say to the gentleman that you don't need a secretary to bring legislation to the floor. and this is not an issue that is new this year or as a result of the november election of last year. it is, frankly, after 65 votes on this floor to repeal the affordable care act, without an alternate -- alternative. without an alternative. i'll tell you my friend, the majority leader, with great respect, you have had six years . six years. you can catalog all the things you think are bad. obviously you don't mention anything that's good except so many in your caucus, perhaps the overwhelming majority of the caucus say-we're going to keep pre-existing conditions, we're going to keep 26. we're not going to eliminate annual limits because that will

hurt people and force them into bankruptcy. i don't hear that discussion going on. the fact of the matter is, mr. leader, can you not get away from the fact that six years has gone by, six years of complaining about how awful it is, by the way as the gentleman knows the majority people now have made it very clear they do not want to repeal the affordable care act unless they e a replacement on the table that they consider and look at alternatives. it's now approximately -- that's, as you know, mr. leader, the first time in the six years because people said, yeah, we don't like the affordable care act in a vacuum. but now when it really may be repealed, they are looking at it much more closely and they don't know what's going to replace it and they are concerned because i have -- i will tell you, family after family after family -- i had somebody come up in the grocery

teeters two nights ago -- harris teeters, two nights ago, with tears in their eye don't let them repeal the affordable care act. i have a son with a dire illness, but for the affordable care act he would not be covered and we couldn't keep him alive. tears in his eyes. when i hear you catalog some of the things, those cases aren't mentioned. the 30 million aren't mentioned. the pre-exing conditions aren't mentioned. i will say to my -- pre-existing conditions aren't mentioned. i will say to my friend you don't need a secretary of health to bring a bill forward. mr. mccarthy: yes, you do. mr. hoyer: i'm going to another subject unless you want to say something. mr. leader, obviously we're very concerned about the affordable care act. we're also very concerned talk about executive orders. on this refugee ban.

issued, according to almost everybody, without much consultation with anybody other than within the white house. an order banning muslim refugees from coming into this country even after very strong vetting. i know what the position is. this is not a ban. the complication you have to that representation is the president keeps mentioning it as a ban as he said he was going to do in the election. and he referred to it a ban just a few days ago. but i would point out to you, mr. leader, i'm sure you know this, not a single terrorist act, not one, has been perpetrated by a refugee coming into this country from any one of the seven nations mentioned. in the ban. we believe this is not only contrary to the constitution, but it's contrary to our

principles. nobody, let me make it clear, mr. leader, so there is no confusion, nobody on this side of the aisle doesn't want to ake america's boarders security. america's land and assets safe, and the american people safe. every one of us on this side of the aisle wants to make sure that happens. and we certainly want to make sure that the vetting is appropriate. as the majority leader knows, the vetting today is a very long and very careful process. so we believe this ban alienates our allies and emboldens terrorists who are now saying, see, this really is a war on islam. that will not be consistent with the safety of our men and women that we have at the point of the spear and will not be consistent to the safety and

security of our allies in the middle east. senators mccain and graham have said exactly that. they pointed out, and i quote, our government has a responsibility to defend our borders, but we must do so in a way that makes us safer and upholds all that is decent and exceptional about our nation. it is clear -- this is john mccain and lindsey graham, it is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that president trump's executive order was not properly vetted. senator graham, senator mccain, chairman of the armed services committee, the gentleman from south carolina. they go on, we're particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little or no consultation with the department of state, defense, justice, and homeland security.

such a hasty process risks harmful results. it continues to be a quote of senator mccain and senator graham. ultimately we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. senator mccain knows something about increased risk. he went on to say, along with senator graham, this executive order sends a signal intended or not that america does not want muslims coming into our country. this why we fear, fear executive order may do more to recruitment s' than improve our security. they said that on the 29th of january, just four days ago. at least four times this week, mr. leader, we asked for the consideration of h.r. 724,

which rescinds the defund and defunds the refugee ban. the speaker said when he took office initially he repeated this year that we were going to have an open, transparent process, and we would consider the important issues of the day on this floor with opportunity to every member of this house to offer their alternatives. i would ask the gentleman whether -- i know the committee would not report it out, but this is a critical issue to our country, to our safety, and to our values. and i ask the gentleman is there a possibility that you would bring to the floor next week or the week thereafter, preferably next week, h.r. 724 so that the members of this house, the people's representatives, could speak to this critically important issue

consistent with the observations of senator mccain and senator graham. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i listened to the speaker when he took office, too, he also said regular order. and the schedule of next week is not on the list. the executive order signed by the president is really, as you know, is based on legislation that passed this house with overwhelming bipartisan support. it was following the attacks over the past two years. it was the safe act that passed this house 289-137. and the visa waiver program improvement and terrorist travel prevention act. passed by 407-19. i'll point out that these two bills received veto-proof majorities. president obama signed the visa waiver bill into law. president trump's actions are temporary pauses and reassess our vetting procedures to keep our country safe.

while they were certainly some confusion with how this was implemented over the weekend, the secretary of homeland security is effectively addressing key issues to ensure legal permanent residents that are returning to our country are allowed entry unless their security service vs. a compelling reason to suggest otherwise. america remains a place of refuge for those seeking, peace, freedom, and opportunity across the world. now, my friend knows because we have been in meetings this week , our rhetoric matters. other people listen to what we say. in these type of situations, especially with the new administration, i've always told my children, in any time of a situation, let's take a deep breath, let's not lose our head, and especially with a brand new administration, i try to give him the benefit of the doubt. they don't have their cabinet there yet. let's let them get their footing. it is not a ban. it is a pause.

it is based upon two pieces of legislation that passed this house. and you love to quote people. and if i may, house democrats and house republicans have no greater priority than keeping americans safe. this is not a partisan issue nor is it a partisan difference. many americans are frustrated with the pace of progress against isis in iraq and syria. i want to see the administration in congress working together to protect our nation. the reforms in this bill are an excellent start. this legislation will make it easier for law enforcement to vet those visitors coming from visa waiver countries such as in europe, to ensure we're not admitting those who have traveled to places like iraq and syria and link up with isis. that was said by you. mr. hoyer: i think that's an excellent quote. which i still agree with. mr. mccarthy: so what i would

say to the gentleman, let's work with this administration. let's make sure as we sat in our meeting this week with leaders of other countries, i thought their advice was was good advice. let's not say what this is not. because it -- we may get political points with one another, but it puts them in harm's way. and they know what the truth of this is. so i think you and i agree on a lot of different things, and we're cordial with one another when we disagree. i don't think this is an area where sometimes we may disagree, but sometimes we have shown we could agree. i know you want to keep america safe, and i know we want to keep america safe. i also know it's a brand new administration. i also know when i go down to that white house, you have been

there with me, there is not a lot of staff there. i know there's going to be a few hiccups along the way. i'm going to work with them. i'm going to help them. i want you to help us help them as well. i yield back. mr. hoyer: thank you very much, mr. leader. can i ask you to do something? mr. mccarthy: the advice you give to your children, about taking a breath? perhaps before they tweet? would you do me a favor. mr. mccarthy: my kids don't tweet. mr. hoyer: that's good advice as well. could you give that advice to the president of the united states and tell him to take a breath before he makes policy or before he offends our allies or before he creates great fear in those who hear what he has to say off the cuff? and yes, i understand that

rhetoric counts. you might talk to him about that as well. he's the one that call this is a ban. i know that everybody else is trying to clean it up and i hope that's the case, and in fact, i have seen, yes, the head of homeland security, general kelly, secretary kelly, trying to clean it up. it is a darn shame that it wasn't cleaned up before. it was a darn shame that the time was not taken to do a -- an order that would, yes, make sure that vetting was appropriate, as my quote was and our legislation. that you talked about. but yes, good advice to your children and good advice to this president. let me just finish then i'll yield back, yield to you. just don't, as immediately comes to mind, tweet it and have the

impact not known to you or your staff or to the country but almost invariably we have seen has a negative effect. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. you know, president obama said that he was rooting for president trump's success. i'd also give the advice, let's not root against him. he still doesn't have his own cabinet. when i watch and listen to what some on the other side, their own leadership, say about some there, i can see where the rhetoric continues to thrive. i think we should put that down. the election is over. now is the time to govern. there are big problems out there. and we can score as many political points as we want back and forth. but there are challenges. you and i have worked together on so many issues out here. from opioid, from the vee ka

waiver so many times. nd we disagree at times. i think it would be good for us and the american public if we can show the leadership to do that. i look forward to working with you on these issues. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment. i think we've demonstrated over the years that we ascribe to that concept. my point to you is that in the first 10 or 12 days of this administration, that concept has been put at great risk. i think the gentleman's advice is good. we have pursued that. i simply urge him to suggest to the president of the united states that he adopt that concept as well. unless the gentleman has something more to say, i'll yield back the balance of my time. mr. mccarthy: it's good to have these colloquies back. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i yield back the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields ack. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday, february 6, when it shall meet at 12:00 for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i would ask unanimous consent to address my colleagues for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to a very good friend and certainly a trusted advisor, and by everyone's

account, one of the very best staff directors ever on the energy and commerce committee, mr. gary andres. i first met gary when he was a young staffer working at the white house for president bush 41. mr. upton: over the years, i became so close with both gary and his wonderful wife, sue. gary came onboard day one for my chairmanship and we assembled an all-star staff of the most professional, talented and kind people on capitol hill. in gary, we got a trusted counselor with a straight mind a strategic mind second to none. he understands that sometimes you can't change the direction of the winds but you can adjust your sails so you always reach your destination no where was this more important than during our herculean 21st century bipartisan cures effort. for more than three year, gary was our five-star general. thanks to his tireless

leadership, yes, we got the job done for patients and families across the country. what drove us more than anything else was that the clock was ticking for folks with terrible diseases and we couldn't waste a day to get this bipartisan bill to the president for him to sign into law and it ended up being what many say was the most significant legislation enacted in the last congress. but it went beyond cures. 562 hearings, 354 measures through the house, 202 signed into law in the last six years. substantial legislative wins that now, whether it be the doc fix, saving medicare, pipeline safety, health reform, opioids so many more, gaferery was with us at the table. gary understands how important the institution is. he has a reverence for the people's house. he was also quick with a smile, witty insight, a laugh he never

lost his perspective, his temper, or eagerness to engage on an issue. i know i speak for all the members and staff on both sides of the aisle when we say thank you, gary. we're going to miss you, but we know we're going to continue to lean on you for advice no matter what the issue is. as he moves on to that next venture, i wish him the very best and his wonderful wife sue who is in the gallery today. it's been an honor to work with this distinguished gentleman. yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i ask 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 want to second and reiterate what my colleague from michigan, fred upton, just said about gary. i actually remember when i was first elected to congress in 1988, and when the first president bush was president, being outside the capitol, outside the house chambers and talking to gary, he was, i believe, the white house congressional liaison at the time. mr. pallone: he just was so special, i mean, i was a young member, didn't really know what was going on around here. with a republican president. and he just was so warm so helpful, trying to help me out even though i was on the other party, even though i was a freshman member. that continued for so -- on so many occasions that both -- both under president bush and afterwards and most recently

with the energy and commerce committee as a staff director. what fred said is absolutely true, gary was always the fighter for the republicans, for the majority, but at the same time always wanted to work with democrats because he liked congressman -- he, like congressman upton, believed very strongly that if we were going to accomplish anything, it had to be done on a bipartisan basis. i know congressman upton mentioned in particular the 21st century cures, but it was true with everything. one of the reasons we were so kelf -- so successful, i think, in doing so many pieces of legislation that were important to the country was not only because congressman upton and his leadership but also because of gary and his working with jeff carroll, our minority staff director. i wish him well. there are very few people that i can say over the last 29 years that i've been here who was always trying to reach out and do the right thing. and i think that's so important.

so congratulations and good luck in the future, gary. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to issue a one-minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i appreciate that. as the new chairman of the energy and commerce committee, i too want to join in showing my appreciation and affection for gary. he has given our committee and dare i say, our country, incredible service for many, many years and i'm grateful for his friendship, i'm grateful for his guidance, his counsel, and as we've gone through this transition, his advice. mr. walden: incredible intellect, a curiosity about how to get policy done. from his start on capitol hill working both bush administrations, leading the energy and commerce committee staff effort, he has this

passion for public service and he's relentless in his devotion to serving the american people and to driving the committee over time and really putting together a great team. as you've heard, because of his leadership, the committee successfully shepherded through important pieces of legislation, bipartisan, for the american people that made their lives better. 21st century cures, modernizing our chemical safety laws, improving pipeline safety, among many, many others. we are fortunate to have had such a gifted advisor, exceptional leader, tireless advocate at the helm of this committee staff for the last six years. it's been an honor to work with you. i want to wish you and your whole family the very best in the years ahead. you have given this country incredible service and we appreciate you for that. thank you, god bless you, god speed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the

gentlewoman from oregon seek recognition? without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this is fatima. she is not a terrorist. she's a four-month-old baby girl in immediate need of open heart surgery. her patients desperately want the best care for her. so they planned to bring her from their home in iran to portland, oregon, to one of the best hospitals for pediatric heart surgery. that's where fatima's uncle and grandparents live, they're american citizens. then president trump hastily issued the executive order and the family's plan were brought to a halt. mr. bonamici: thed orer is supposed to expire in 90 days, but fatima's family doesn't know if she can wait that long. i don't know what president trump had in mind when he issued that order, but it probably

wasn't baby fatima. this order puts her life in danger and reduces the united states in the eyes of the world. we have reached out to her family but it is heartbreaking and disgraceful that this even happened. i hope to invalidate this unconstitutional executive order soon and i hope it's in time for baby fatima. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i thank the speaker. today i rise on the important impact of mentoring in our society. i heard from a constituent, carissa, who works with the boys and girls club in my district. one of her mentees was struggling, having trouble in schools, finding difficulty in building friendships with others in school.

she helped build her confidence which led to her participation in jr oombings tc program and improving camaraderie. mr. hill: at-risk youth face many difficult challenges and it's even more challenging without the support of caring adults. with mentors, at-risk youth are less likely than their peers to skip school or use drugs and more likely to go to college, play sports and volunteer in our community. whether it's through a mentoring organization like scouting or the boys and girls club, being a positive influence for our young people goes a long way in strengthening our communities and serving the best interests of our children. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

shirley is from my district, i heard from her this past december when she told me about her daughter sara. sara has had health problem all her life and unfortunately because it's been too expensive, she's not been able to afford health insurance. but she was finally able to be covered under the affordable health care act because of the historic medicaid expansion. mr. heck: it made a big difference in her life because just two years ago, she was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. sara may be just a statistic to some and indeed she's one of 601,000 washingtonians who have been covered under the medicaid expansion, 20,000 of whom have been treated for cancer. but to sara's mother, sara can't just be boiled down to an a.c.a. statistic. sara is her daughter who will lose this coverage if congress repeals the health care law without a comparable

replacement. and it would put sara and her fight against thyroid cancer back to square one. friends and colleagues, i plead with you, go to your district. talk to the shirleys, talk to the saras, listen to them. their stories matter. because they matter. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the ayatollah, the menace of the desert, has filed yet another u.n. resolution prohibiting missile tests. mr. poe: no sur pride, iran can't follow the rules. time and time again iran has tested ballistic missiles with no consequences. the last time they launched two missiles with, quote, israel

must be can't follow the rules. time and time wiped off the ear written on them in hebrew. also the ayatollah has clearly stated numerous times that he wants to destroy the united states. even worse, mr. speaker, we're paying him to do it. yes, that's right. obama slipped the rogue tire and $150 billion hoping appeasement would make the ayatollah be nice. guess what? obama was wrong and the u.s. is less safe. the ayatollah in my opinion is using our money to build weapons to destroy us. mr. speaker, there must be clear consequences for the dictator of iran and his mullah cronies for war mongering. the people of iran need to change this regime. and the menace of the desert needs to go. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. mr. speaker, i strongly condemn

the escalation of violence in eastern ukraine by russian back separatists and call for an immediate withdrawal of heavy weapons. i'm deeply concerned about the loss of life and deteriorating humanitarian conditions that exist there. there has been a, quote, unaccountable amount of violations of the minks agreement according to the osce. mr. boyle: russian separatist forces must immediately honor the cease-fire to allow for humanitarian asince. i call on this administration to step up and see this through. thousands have already died in this conflinth, including at least eight -- conflict, including at least eight in the last five days. 17,000 civilians, including 2,500 children, do not have access to water, electricity, or heat during the height of winter. i urge secretary tillerson to provide ukraine with defensive weapons as congress has already approved and to provide

meaningful support to our ukrainian allies against putin's aggression. when it comes to russia, we must see this administration's true colors. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: 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. today marks the conclusion of the annual catholic schools week in america, and i rise today to celebrate these quality educational institutions. this year the theme celebrated was catholic schools, communities of faith, knowledge, and service. schools across the country observed the week with masses, open houses, and other activities for students, families, parishioners, and community members. through these events, schools focused on the value catholic education provides to young people and contributions to their church, communities, and to our nation.

mr. speaker, catholic schools provide an excellent education to catholics and noncatholics alike. these schools offer academic excellence and faithful education for students nationwide. national test scores, high school graduation rates, college attendance, and other day to show catholics schools frequently outperform schools on both the public and private sectors. while there has been challenges enrollment in some areas, the good news is that there is a strong demand and enthusiasm for the rigorous and quality education catholic schools provide. nearly 30% of schools have waiting list for admission and new schools are opening across the country. congratulations to all involved in catholic school week and your efforts to educate the next generation. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition. without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute.

mr. sherman: as many have explained on this floor, trump's exec order, his muslim ban, repudiates our values and violates our constitution. after 20 years on the foreign affairs committee, i think it's important to come to this floor and exlane how that executive order is harm -- explain how that executive order is harmful to our national security. trump's executive order plays right into the isis narrative. it says that there is a clash of civilizations and that all islam is our enemy. isis, which has perhaps a few hundred thousand followers, dreams of convincing all of islam, dreams of convincing 1.5 million muslims, that they are -- 1.5 billion muslims, that they are at war with america and the west. we do not have a clash of civilizations. we have a clash between civilization and the forces of darkness bent on destroying civilization, whether they reside in raqqa or 1600 pennsylvania avenue. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition. without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in memory of a young man who would have been my constituent. a few years ago last week 21-year-old grant was manning the counter at a mesa, arizona convenience store. an illegal alien talked into the store and shot grant in the head, killing him, over a pack of cigarettes that the man did not want to pay for. the illegal immigrant upon -- had been out on bond awaiting deportation due to haven't criminal history. grant had his whole life ahead of him but lost it because of the failure of his government to protect him from criminally violent illegal immigrants. i have introduced h.r. 486, otherwise known as grant's law, this bill would end the practice of releasing illegal

aliens guilty of deportable crimes so they are no longer a danger to innocent american citizens. i was emboldened last week when president trump invited grant's father, steve, to the white house to witness the signing of an executive order administratively ending this dangerous policy. i am thankful for a president that protects americans and seeks the rule of law. however, if congress fails to pass h.r. 486, this policy remains a temporary presidential order and does not carry the permanent force of law. we must make sure that grant's fate never again happens to any young man or woman. we must pass grant's law. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal request. oint resolution. the clerk: house joint resolution 38, joint resolution disapproving the rules

submitted by the department of the interior, known as the tream protection rule. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. clarke of new york for today, mr. evans of pennsylvania for today, and ms. ackson lee of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2017, gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. it is friday, it's been a good week in washington. we've gotten some of president

trump's nominees approved and through the senate. call them like you seem them, i think. the majority leader, mitch mcconnell, has done a great job this week. applaud his efforts. and as a result of what president trump has been doing, and actually part of it is just his getting elected, has done for our economy because people know, at least a lot of people know, he's going to keep his word. he's already showing he's doing that. and he's repealed some of the executive orders that have been doing so much damage to our economy. and when we say economy, what we mean is the rank-and-file people, the backbone of america, that had been struggling who have made less money than they did eight years ago when adjusted for inflation.

those are people we're talking about. those that have been out of the -- out of work. the 95 million, the 4 million that have become so -- 94 million, that have become so desperate they have pulled out of even applying for work. i enjoyed to an extent the exchange against -- between my friends kevin mccarthy, friend across the aisle, mr. hoyer, amused yer, and i get when i hear democrats quoting senator mccain and senator . aham, wonderful people lindsey graham, it is a real joy to be around talking to lindsey graham, but if you look at positions they have taken, it would make you think twice about quoting them as positions

you wanted to have supporting yours. i mean, nothing stands taller than the 30 million of the 90 million or so living in egypt, when they rose up that june cause a muslim brother was seizing power. he was on his way to becoming a chavez in the -- in north africa, and the people rose up. it was not only the largest peaceful demonstration in the history of the world, it was the largest demonstration in the history of the world. all over egypt moderate muslims, christians, jews, secularrists, they all rose up, went to the streets, and demanded the removal of the man who would be king, the muslim brother named morsi. the difference in this king is,

as many of the egyptians have pointed out when i have been in cairo and other places, he wasn't just going to be king, he was going to be the puppet spiritual leader of slam in egypt. some of my egyptian friends when i have been over there, yeah, we have seen video of him taking his orders from the imam, and he followed his leadership. if that's true, he wasn't just going to be king, he was going to be a king puppet. but the muslim brother was removed as a result of 30 million people rising up peacefully. morsi only allegedly got around 13 million to claim the win, and made clear his opponent knew for the original

presidential election that if he raised a stink about any votes being fraudulent, they would burn the country down. that was some of his supporters. because the muslim brotherhood, if you go back and check, when churches are burned, it's normally the muslim brotherhood over there. in egypt, they have been an anathema to representative government, to civilized government, to nonsectarian government. to want a new caliphate start with basically the old ottoman empire and turkey, he's undoing all of the great reforms made by the great atta turning nearly 100 years -- atta terk -- aat that turning, nearly 100 years ago, there are those in turkey who would like to see a caliphate, a new ottoman empire, and it have its leadership in turkey.

they long for the days when they ruled an expansive caliphate. and i had a reporter say why would you say that? go look at a map. i know you didn't get -- you weren't ever taught what the ottoman empire was, go look at a map and look at the countries where our president is supporting an uprising that will eventually, if we don't stop it, it will become anarchy, it will become part of the caliphate. but the new jobs report just out, 227,000 new jobs and from what i'm hearing from constituents, these aren't just the part-time jobs or the minimum wage jobs that the previous president -- presidency bragged about and had to brag about because they didn't have

anything else to talk about. people lost their full-time jobs and could only acquire part-time jobs and this administration bragged about those, they got two part-time jobs to make up for losing their full-time job, this administration bragged, we created two jobs. i submit when you're creating two jobs by causing a person to lose all their benefits and full-time employment, you haven't done such a good thing. but fortunately, the people of egypt did not thereon senator mccain, senator graham, when they flew to cairo and begged r the people of ejipt to return the muslim brother who would be king back into his royal kingship, and i know they didn't -- they weren't intentionally supporting an evil ruler. it's just, they didn't know. so hopefully they will become

more aware that it's not a good thing to support the muslim brotherhood, and with regard to australia and the alleged news about president trump getting into it with the leader of who -- to whom is the leader of australia accountable? to whom does the leader of australia owe his allegiance? it's the people of australia. to hen he calls, or talks resident trump and begs or demands trump take these refugees that the prime minister in australia knows are a threat to the safety of the australian

-- austrian -- i'm sorry, australian people, when he wants them out of australia, there's a reason. because his allegiance is not to the people of the united states. his allegiance is to the people of australia. so naturally, being alieget to the people of -- aileenant to the people of australia -- allegiant to the people of australia, he wants them out of us a trailia. president trump was saying, not, give us your tired, your poor, the people yearning to be free, but give us your people that yearn to destroy america because we're going to bring them in, we're not going to vet them properly because we've got no information to properly vet them, that's how we've been able to let people in who had fingerprints on i.e.d.'s that killed americans, maimed americans, because we are not properly vetting them. we compare any information we

have against what we've got, but don't forget, as phil haney, the whistle blower from homeland security, pointed out, he was ersonally required to delete massive pages of information about terrorist ties of people coming into the united states because they did not want those terrorist ties in the homeland security database. and then he also, of course, was on his computer when he saw somebody above his pay grade deleting things that he personally put in. about terrorist ties. they were deleting them. so when janet napolitano talked about how we got -- we get a ping, we connect the dots, she caused massive numbers of dots to be deleted. they're not there. we don't know who we're getting.

when anyone comes from syria, we know isis is taking -- has taken governmental printing areas before. they can produce official syrian passports, not with the support of the syrian government, just because they have the equipment to do it. so when we get information saying, i'm from syria, maybe they are, maybe they're not. we don't know where they're from, as the f.b.i. director who created one of the most incredible political stunts of any f.b.i. director in history last summer, when he steps up, outlined that a crime has been quited -- has been committed by a presidential candidate, hillary clinton, and then goes on to say, but no reasonable prosecutor would pursue this, incredible. the extent he went to help hillary clinton. and i know there were some of my democratic friends that got mad

at him when a week before the election he said they were reopening the investigation, but if you look at the circumstances, there was information we had f.b.i. agents who were so upset that comey wouldn't reopen the investigation and when they know what was -- some of what was in the computers that they had gotten hold of belonging to anthony wiener and hillary clinton's closest advisor and abbedin-wiener. the word was we had f.b.i. agents saying if you don't reopen we're going to have a press conference, we're going to resign, we're going to out you that you're protecting hillary clinton. so what could he do to help hillary clinton but say, i'm going to reopen the investigation, and i commented

to somebody in the media back then, well, of course, it may appear to help hillary, we will know whether that was his intent or not because you can't examine tens of thousands of emails adequately, you can d an algorithm search but you can't adequately investigate them for crime, including false statements to the f.b.i., within a week, so if he comes out before the election and says, there's nothing here, then we know why he came out and said we're reopening, it was to stop f.b.i. agents from resigning and outing him for protecting hillary clinton and so what happens, two days before the election, he said, we've checked it all out -- couldn't possibly have. we've checked it all out and there's nothing here to prosecute. so that same f.b.i. director, though, didn't help the obama

administration. he was calling them like he saw them. that is, we'll vet these people but when they give us information from syria, we have to formation against them vet that. we have to accept it for what it is. we don't know who these people are. so in the meantime, the economy is turning around, i mean, how sad is it when we have just live through the eight years under a president's policies that were so abysmal for the good of erica that the economy, when adjusted for inflation, was slower than it was in the four years of jimmy carter. and i know there are some in the media that would say, see, this was a good month, you look at the eight years and let's look

at them compared to the four years of president carter, four of the worst years for the american economy in history. ou know, since the depression. and president obama over eight years had a slower economy when adjusted for inflation. retty sad. it was also sad this week when, this is an article from "the daily caller," laura wilkerson, whose teenage son was tortured and murdered by an illegal alien in 2010, got into an emotional confrontation with house democratic minority leader nancy pelosi at a cnn town hall event tuesday night. wilkerson told pelosi in 2010, one of the illegals slaughtered my son, tortured him, beat him, tied him up like an animal and

set him on fire. i'm not a one-story mother, this happens every day because there are no laws enforced at our border. we have to start giving american families first. on the issue of pelosi a democratic support for sanctuary city, will core -- wilkerson asked, how do you reconcile in your head about allowing people to disavow the law. leader pelosi said, there's nothing, i'm sure, that can compare to the fwreef you have so i pray for you, unquote. pelosi went on, i do want to say to you that in our sanctuary cities, our people are not disobeying the law. these are law-abiding citizens. it enables them to be there without being reported to i.c.e. in case of another crime that they might bear witness to. pelosi then asked if her son was murdered in a sanctuary city. josh wilkerson was murdered just

outside houston, texas, which is a sanctuary city. so i believe in the power of prayer. i think it's one of the greatest gifts god gave us, as c.s. lewis talked about. we're here on earth behind enemy lines, if you would, and can you imagine being behind enemy line, getting messages from your home headquarters and you refuse to open them and read them. he says, we have a bible, those are messages from our home headquarters. we ought to be reading them. i do believe in the power of prayer, just like our minority eader pelosi, but we need to distinguish between things that we should pray for and things that we can fix ourselves. things that are outside our control that we ought to be praying about, those things which are in our control and when it's within your control to have -- to return to the rule of

law, enforce the laws that exist, treat everybody fairly under the law, that's something you don't really have to pray about. you just help us do it. i have not met tommy nelson, a pastor in denton, texas, but i listened to a 12-hour bible study he did. one of his comments in that study on ecclesiastes was basically what so many people say, you don't have to worry, god is in control. tommy nelson said, yeah, god is in control but just because he's in control doesn't mean he wants taos lean on our shovel and pray for a hole. yeah. when you've got a shovel in your hand, you don't have to pray for a hole, you start digging. when you've got the tools to protect the american people and enforce the rule of law, you just do it. now, you can pray for wisdom to elp you as you go.

but i know it may be a freudian slip, may not have been, but when minority leader pelosi, when she was asked about illegal aliens, she referred to them as our people. i don't know. could that be because they know when illegal aliens vote, they vote democrat? we know that most dead people vote 100% democrat. i'm -- i've encouraged the republican party, let's don't have any group that we're not willing to recruit votes from and traditionally dead people vote 100% democrat. perhaps it's time that some of them started voting republican for a change. in any event, the, i guess, minority whip, mr. hoyer, talking about a fellow with tears in his eyes say, please don't repeal obamacare because

my son will be unable to get insurance if you repeal obamacare. well, that gets to all of us when somebody with tears in their eyes comes to us and begs for help. the only reason he had tears in falsees is because of the information being put out by the democratic party. because when we repeal obamacare, people are not going to lose their insurance. and some americans have a right to be skeptical because they were told by president obama and all of the democrats, no, no, when we pass obamacare, nobody loses their insurance. well, we found out that that was a lie to millions of americans. and some of them were able to get insurance, some of it ended up being medicaid, most of the new people got medicaid. not really insurance they were

hoping for. but the insurance most people got. i know i had 17 people come to my office in lufkin, they were looking to make a show, not so much to give information or otherwise they would have called for an appointment. my district representative there was at a service honoring her late father at a hospice and she forgot in her emotional state to put a note on the door that she was running to that. but anyway, they made a big deal, here's an office, not occupied, hopefully they'll have a little sympathy for somebody in her situation, but they weren't looking to get information to me. that's why the reporter had more information about the meeting when my office had no information about the meeting. . we make appointments and i'm here most of the time so i can't be there, so i got people to

meet with them. but this article, february 1, melissa quinn, "daily signal." experienceses with obamacare can be boiled down to just a few numbers. since the health care law's implementation three years ago, wheldon 60 has lost her insurance four different times. under obamacare. a woman is currently enrolled in her fifth new insurance policy in four years. again, and through no fault of my own, i'm just sitting here minding my own business and here we go again. she gets thrown off another insurance policy. anyway, she goes on to explain, she's been denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition related to her career as a dental high generalist -- hi generalist. but people are not going to lose their insurance. all we're going to do is create the opportunity to have far better insurance policies than you got under obamacare.

and you're not going to get a penalty for having better insurance than what obamacare required, so you don't have to pay a penalty. and you can have good insurance and you won't be taxed every for having better insurance. it's going to be a great day for america to do that. but, that brings me to the point i want to get to next. about the wall. article here, february 1, smuggling my grants to europe now a major funding source for the islamic state. well, it only makes sense that the islamic state would figure that out. because, you know, we had information, they consulted with the drug cartels in mexico, and the drug cartels, as the border patrolmen have told me during the middle of the night, the times i've been down there, there's not an inch of the mexican border that's not control by some drug cartel. nobody crosses that border illegally without paying

something to the drug cartel, or promising to work for them when they get to america. what a great business model. you're selling drugs, making billions of dollars getting it across the border illegally into the united states, and, unlike most businesseses, where you have to pay the -- businesses, where you have to play the employee, they get the employee to pay them as part of their debt repayment, to get them into the united states. so what a business model. making billions from selling drugs illegally, then department of homeland security, a one told me, -- as one told me, they call us their logistics in the drug cartels because we ship people all over the country to cities where they need drug sales, prostitutes, mules. we send them there and then they've got people in all these things selling drugs for them.

if we build a wall, and know there are areas like where the rio grande is so wide you don't need a wall, just have people guard the border, do you that and -- you do that and it cuts off the massive flow of drugs into the united states. it means the billions of dollars going to the drug cartels that they can use to corrupt the mexican government will dry up. drug cartels know it. so i would submit, mr. speaker, the only mexican leaders that on the to -- that object to a wall and total security of our border between mexico are either ignorant and they don't derstand that the reason they're 60 something in the world economies instead of being fourth, fifth, or sixth, is because of the corruption that

comes from the drug cartels and you dry up the billion of dollars they're making with the wall and with border security and mexico gets in the top 10 economies. but, yes, it mieges the drug cartel it's dry -- means the drug cartels dry up, and it means they're ignorant what have will happen if we secure the border, other they're in the pocket of the drug cartels -- or they're in the pocket of the drug cartels. those are the only two choices. if you're a mexican leader and you oppose the united states enforcing our border, you're in the pocket of the drug cartels or you're just ignorant of why your economy is not one of the top 10 in the world. you got the best location, you got two continents, north and south above you, they would be great markets, you've got two great oceans on either side to ship, you've got incredible natural resources. you've got some of the hardest working people in the world in mexico. so why is it so far down the chain as economies?

well, drug cartels. the wall and border security will dry them up and the mexican people will be free with a vibrant economy and they will take their appropriate place in the great economies of the world. so, i've been joined by my friend from florida, and i mean that truly, i think the world of matt gates, and i would like to yield to -- matt gaetz, and i would like to yield to him for whatever time he cares to use. gates gates i thank -- gaetz gaetz i thank -- mr. gaetz: i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding. i rise today to speak to the danger that's currently posed by the islamic republic of iran. iran and its fundamentalist government poles the gravest threat to global peace, stability in the middle east and israel's existence. iran continues to extend its dangerous agenda through the region in places such as lebron

by -- lebanon. in syria and iraq and in yemen. iran's taking hostage of u.s. sailors and its continued ballistic missile tests and death threats to israel highlight iran's evil intentions and the need for the united states to play a leading role in rolling back iran's growing influence and its push to destabilize the middle east and the world. these issues have been exacerbated by the irresponsible and catastrophic nuclear deal 1.ween iran and the p-5 plus it's obvious to anyone that the 1 $150 billion given to iran will be used to fund more terror and further iran's destructive ambitions. in addition, the nuclear deal legitimatizes iran's ability to enrich uranium and functionally ensures iran's path to nuclear weapon within 10 years. the deal is structured to mask iran's inevitable noncompliance.

as a member of the florida legislature, i had supported florida's iran divestment. and as a member of congress, i very much look forward to re-authorizing the iran sanctions act. i am extremely proud of president trump and his administration for enacting appropriate sanctions against iranian officials who have been engaged in the most recent destructive and destabilizing nuclear tests. unfortunately, mr. speaker, americans, israelis and all citizens of the world who aspire to peace continue to be harmed by the reckless and irresponsible foreign policy of the past president's administration. former president obama believed in a policy of appeasement toward iran. this is not dissimilar to the policies of appeasement that neville chamberlain used when confronting the threats of nazi germany. but if president obama was america's neville chamberlain,

perhaps, perhaps his time has given rise to donald trump and the opportunity to be america's winston churchill. i support president trump's efforts to send a message to iran that ballistic missile testing will not be tolerated. because iran only understands strength. and for the last eight years, they have seen from this country far too much weakness and far too much willingness to accept their destructive role in the world. mr. speaker, the way iran operates is through a series of franchises for terror. whether that's hamas or hezbollah, whether that's the houthis in yemen, we see time nd time again iran acting as a neopersian, neoottoman empire. that cannot be tolerated in a peaceful world. it cannot be tolerated in the most dangerous neighborhood on earth. and it underscores the

importance of americans speaking with resolve and with strength in condemning the most recent ballistic missile tests and in standing with our great aest ally, israel -- our greatest ally, israel. it was shameful that the in the a winning hours of the obama administration, president obama was willing to allow the united nations to take action against israel and continuing its furtherance of appeasement towards some of the most dangerous countries on the planet earth, who do not share our values or our interests. and so i am glad to see an american reset, a resurgent america, again, speaking to the great values that have functioned as a beacon of hope for the world for generations. that is what we must return to. and that is what president trump is doing today. so i applaud his administration, i applaud his secretary of the treasury for stepping forward and advancing these needed sanctions. i am hopeful that this congress

will continue to take action to show support for president trump in this endeavor, but we must also recognize that this is but a first step. so much damage has been done to the cause of peace for the last eight years under president obama. and we have much work to do in this congress. whether it is rebuilding and restoring our military so that we can be a force for peace, whether it's making sure that our allies know that we will stand with them, or whether it's making sure that our adversaries know that we are very serious and there will be serious consequences for their bad behavior, i am proud of this america that we are working toward together. i'm proud of these policies. and i yield back to the gentleman from texas so that he may have the opportunity to speak to the importance of america speaking with a voice of clarity for peace, prosperity and strength throughout the middle east and the world. mr. gohmert: if the gentleman might take a question.

i appreciate that clarity. it's clarity that's been missing for a long time. we have people screaming that president trump should not have put a temporary pause, that was half as long as the pause president obama put on, and i understand there's so much stress and pressure when you're president. he probably just forgot that he put a six-month ban previously on a muslim nation, sending people in -- nation sending people in. but you made so clear the case for concern about iran and i'm with you. i'm thrilled that we have a president that's not choosing to , ve our lunch money figuratively speaking, to the big bully in the school yard. i'm not sure if my friend from florida ever got bull idea in elementary school.

i learned early on, it doesn't help to give bullies money. they're not going to leave you alone until you stand up to them and maybe they whip you, but they don't want to go through that again, what you put them through by standing up to them. so they leave you alone. in our case, we're strong enough to take on any bully. but instead we've paid the big bully, iran, as you've pointed out, massive amounts, billions and billions of dollars, agreed to pay them up to $150 billion. but we've got some friends here in congress, in the house and senate, that were so upset with the president having this 90-day pause on seven countries, and they didn't realize, i know we get so busy here we don't notice nths a lot of other things, -- notice a lot of other things, but they apparently didn't realize that those seven countries were designated by the

obama administration. but one of them, iran, country you've talked so eloquently about, and we have people here in this body that don't think we should hold up refugees from iran. as the gentleman was talking about, iran has not -- the government has not shown any good faith at all. would the gentleman be concerned about having people that the iranian government allowed to slip out of the country and come into the united states, do you have any problem with president bama's pause on that refugee surge into the united states? mr. gaetz: i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding. isn't it refreshing to have a president of the united states who is willing to do in office precisely the things he said he would do on the campaign trail? notably putting the interests of

americans and the security of americans first, in a world that even former secretary of state george schultz said is more dangerous and perilous today than during the highest tensions of the cold war. so to specifically answer the gentleman's question, i'm grateful that president trump is prioritizing the security of americans. and my hope is that in the 115th congress, we will work with the president, with his administration, to ensure that as we continue to mature these policies and advance them, we do them in a way that is easily understandable for those enforcing them, and for the american people, and that it sends a message to the world that america continues to be the most generous country on the planet when it comes to welcoming individuals who share our values and who aspire to be productive and prosperous and inclusive. what we have no tolerance for is

those who come to the united states not to be part of the american experience, but to destroy it. too often that's not just been the fear that we have felt from some who have been embedded by dash within refugees but it is exactly what is preached by the government of iran. how silly of the united states to think that we would give hundreds of billions of dollars to a nation that calls america "the great satan," that seeks to wipe israel off the planet earth, and believe that that money will be used for peaceful purposes. it won't. iran's desires for expanded hegemony are not to stabilize the middle east. they are expressly to destabilize the middle east. this regime in iran will never share america's values. and so america should not be funding the very destructive behavior that has done so much to harm the lives of so many people. the gentleman from texas brings

up a great point. if we hadn't endured the policies of appeasement for the last eight years, if america hadn't withdrawn from the world stage so suddenly, then perhaps we would not have the conditions in the middle east that have made life so difficult for people that they have wanted to badly to be refugees to europe and to the united states. we should want countries to be ed that are willing to stable and inclusive. those who are our sworn enemies, who do not share our values, should receive no quarter from the united states of america. mr. speaker, i have the great honor to serve on the house armed services committee and we received briefings this week, thanks to chairman thornberry from general petraeus and other national security experts. they reinforced these facts that the world is dangerous as a consequence of american withdrawal. and i'm grateful that the 115th congress will stand with president trump in his -- and

his agenda to rebuild our military, to rebuild our standing, and to make very clear to the world that we'll be with you if you want peace. but if you aspire to spread terror there is no role for you on the global stage and we will not do the things to elevate those terrible regimes to any place of prominent. this is a great time for revival and renewable -- renewal in this country. as americans do more to rebuild the country internally and grow our economy and achieve more prosperity with lower and fairer taxes, with a regulatory climate that's more acceptable for a prosperous country, we also have to keep an eye on the world and our position in the global stage. and i think that it is refreshing that that is a time of revival as well. and restoration. and restored american prominence. because the world is a safer place when america is the strongest country in the world. president trump's actions today

to create sanctions against those who have been directly involved in ballistic missile tests send a clear message. we will stand with our allies and we will stand against the enemies of peace. with that, i yield back to the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: such great points. and the counter argument is made often to us, well, other than the san bernardino shootings, has there been a terrorist attack involving a non-u.s.-born attacker since 9/11? there's a great article in "the federalist," january 30, and he answers yes, but first of all, why exclude the san bernardino killers, terrorists? because malik was born in akistan and that attack killed 14. and phil haney, the whistleblower from homeland

security pointed out, if he had not been removed from the line secondly n allowed to question someone like -- secondaryly question someone like malik, it is worth note, nder the obama administration, under jeh johnson and before him napolitano they punished people who pointed out radical islamists rather than giving them positions we were they could recognize radical islamists. t phil haney points out, tashim malik is a man's name. the woman came if she had come through him, he would have asked, why do you have a man's name and it happens to be a man who was a terrorist centuries ago?

to ask a question like that, you have to be well educated into the history of radical islam. not islam, but radical islam. and we have spent so much money as a country and even as a congress on countering violent extremism, and we hear from homeland security whistleblowers, some of them don't want to go public yet, but we hear from them that so much of that money was spent on conferences and seminars aching our homeland security agents, f.b.i. agents, our state department people, our intelligence people to spot islam fobe, they would teach the phrase toss look for when someone re-- phrases to look for when someone reported a potential radical islamist and you would know that's an islam obe and that's why in -- and

islamophobe, and that's why in san bern tino when someone reported this guy, they they wrote him off as being prejudice against islam. it's because the money spent by this government intimidating people into refusing to notice radical islam and getting them to punish if they didn't find eople who they named islamophobes, their career was over. mr. gaetz: build the gentleman yields? mr. gohmert: absolutely. mr. gaetz: the gentleman is from texas, i'm from florida. both of our states have seen many of the negative imim-- economic consequences of illegal immigration but my question is about the negative security consequences of illegal immigration. we are receive manager reports that isis, deash, other islamic

-- daesh, other islamic fundamentalists are exploiting our border for their own economic gain as well as to smuggle people into the united states who may function as lone wolves or as part of a coordinated terrorist attack against americans. so i would hope that the gentleman would speak to the interconnectivity between the need for strong border security and a wall on our southern border with mexico and the risks bosed -- posed by islamic fundamentalism. mr. gohmert: i thank the gentleman, i would also note as this "federalist" article points out, yeah, of course when there's a terrorist attack, it also affects the economy. that's why osama bin laden wrote about how they had only spent a tiny amount of money to train their people from 9/11 and it had clearly cost america trillions of dollars that even if they couldn't bring us down any other way, if they could do other attacks like that, costing

relatively low amounts to them but costing us billions and trillions, they could bring us down economically, but -- so it only makes sense, though, iran wants to bring us down so they ought to be one of the seven that the obama administration named as a threat, and they were, but even just recently, at ohio state university, abdul razzaq attan ran other several students with a car before attacking them with a butcher knife. that was a refugee born in somalia, one of the seven countries that president trump med that -- that president obama's administration named as a threat, and so president trump took the obama administration seriously and named them as one of seven that we would have not a permanent ban but a temporary ban for 90 days.

the guy ran over numerous students at ohio state but our friends on the other side of the aisle and their friends in the refuse to notice what's going on. look at tsarnaev, the tsarnaev brothers in boston. as we know, russia notified the united states, not once, but twice that the older tsarnaev had been radicalized. he had been to the country and the people he hung around with were radicals and it seemed like they probably radicalized him. what happened? -- what happens? they get information to our intelligence community and since they've been trained for the ast eight years only noticed islamophobes, you can tell somebody is an islamophobe if they complain about a radical

islamist, then you know you've got an islamophobe. they're not going to be look, they're going to look for islamo mombings bes, instead of looking for radical islamists. so i'm sure they looked into it but baseden their -- based on their train, they have no reason to look for it. so russia notifyings us again. as i understand they notified us throw times. the f.b.i. said, we sent an f.b.i. agent to interview him he said, basically , he said he wasn't a terrorist, he was a good guy. wow. imagine that. somebody that wants to kill americans might also lie. who would have ever thought. except american juries. i've seen it as a judge. i've seen juries find that if you will lie to them, you may do a lot worse things as well. well, the reverse is also true.

often if you're willing to take someone's life, you might just be willing to lie about it as well. so the f.b.i. didn't even stop there. taking the word, they didn't take the word of tsarnaev, they went to his mother and apparently his mother said, no, my son is not a terrorist. he's a good boy. she's a good boy. so there you go. full f.b.i. investigation. not under the old f.b.i. not the way most f.b.i. agents have ever been trained. but of course under the last eight years of training of the f.b.i., they're afraid to ask the tough questions. the truth is, they don't know the questions to ask. they don't know that you should ask about whether there's been a tremendous increase in the amount of study of the koran, and a massive increase in the memory -- memroization of the koran, a change in appearance, knowing what to look for and

asking questions like, what do you think about the egyptian martyr, muslim brother who wrote the little book "milestones" that osama bin laden said, along naseef for whom abden orked at one time, he credited naseef and also the book "milestones" to radicalizing him. if you haven't been trained with kim jensen's 700 pages which were outlawed by the f.b.i. for a while because he had clearly explained what f.b.i. agents should be looking for and mr. jensen told me that they banned his information, they struck it, wouldn't allow anybody to be trained under his information that trained people what to look for in a radical islamist, but then they brought it back but only for some of the leaders, the rank and file, for so long

under this administration, did not get the benefit of his 700 pages that would help train. why? because care. the council on american islamic relations. who had implications in the holy land foundation trial, the biggest supporter of terrorism ever prosecuted in the united states. convictions all around. in november of 2008. and they should have gone on to prosecute the named co-conspirators and the only reason they didn't is because a new administration came in. khalid chic mohammed, the mastermind -- sheikh mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, the brutele -- brutal killings of about 3,000 americans and other foreigners, innocentvilles, he has bragged -- innocent victim he has bragged about his planning and in a guilty plea, where the judge went through

-- went through, as i used to, to make sure they understood their right he bragged about that and some terrorist attacks they didn't even know he had involvement in. he was bragging. and he says, we have terrorized you, then praise be to allah. and he says such things as, we deserve attack, we deserve to be killed in america, anyone who is a low-life jew or says that god has a son. those of us who believe god had a son and the las vegased the world so much he sent his only begotten son, whosoever believed in him shall not perish but have etefrpbl life. anyone who believes that is worthy of death under the koran, according to the brilliant teacher and master mind of the 9/11 attacks. .

then he quotes from the koran. that anyone that tries to combine someone with allah is worthy of death. and that means any christian. so, they've explained these things. but khalid sheik muhammad went through an expansive hearing with the judge, explaining what all he was involved in and why he was guilty of 9/11 and praise be to allah for all of the people that were killed on 9/11, at the pentagon, at the world trade centers. why was a he not sentenced? -- was he not sentenced? because we had an election in 2008, and before the plea was made final we had a new attorney general named eric holder, and that the point all bets were off. -- that point all bets were off. they didn't follow up. plea was withdrawn. and he still hasn't been sentenced to the things he admitted over eight years ago.

had they simply moved forward with the guilty plea, if we had had a president for the last eight years that made clear you might as well plead guilty because nobody's going to let you out, then we would have finished the guilty plea. been would have appropriately sentenced. but instead this administration chose to send hope to khalid sheik muhammad, you know, he might end up being one of the people they release, because if they close guantanamo bay, he either gets moved to the united states or we let him go. maybe like we have to some who went to yemen and are back in the fight. or other countries like saudi arabia back in the fight. no, he had real hope once president obama came in and eric holder became attorney general. loretta lynch after him. that he might get released, even

fter he admitted to the most important role in the killing of 3,000 people on american soil on 9/11. he still has not been prosecuted . they didn't follow up on his guilty plea. the plea was withdrawn. that man should not be allowed out of prison, he's a threat to the world. and he's a valuable tool in the hands of radical islam. well,ed that thank god, as president obama -- well, thank god, as president obama said, elections have consequences. we have a president who didn't take an oath of office to protect all of the people of australia. he made clear our friends will know they're our friends. and i can see him working very closely with the prime minister of australia in the future. but leaders around the world are now taking notice.

wait a minute, america has a president that's not coming to us and apologizing for america's goodness and their per suit of freedom -- pursuit of freedom for as many people as they can, not apologizing. and he's making clear, if you're our friend, you're going to feel it. if you're our enemy, you're oing to feel it. i think iran may have finally met their match. we don't have an apologist come in and apologize for america's efforts, their blood, the treasure that's been spent on behalf of people around the world. and now even australian prime minister understands, look, i want to work with you. president trump feels that way. he wants to work with them. he will work with them. but, my oath is to the united states of america and i know your oath is to australia. and i know because a of your oath to help and protect -- because of your oath to help and protect the people of australia.

you want to get rid of those refugees, some of whom may be dangerous. and i know president obama said, yeah, we'll take the dangerous people that may hurt australians, never mind we got americans being hurt, we'll take them. there's a different sheriff in town here in washington. and leaders around the world need to know that starting on january 20, the united states is no longer going to take actions that are detrimental to our own well-being, to the well-being of americans, and to the security of the united states under our constitution. so thank god, thank trump, thank those that have -- are seeing with clarity what's going on. and we will look forward to working with the mexican leaders that realize the only way mexico ever achieves its rightful, economic place in the world, is if a wall is built where it can

be, our border is enforced, the impoverished, and then mexico can be one of the top economies in all the world, because of the best workers -- some of the best workers in the world, massive natural resources with which they've been blessed. they just so far have not had america be the kind of good neighbor that would stop -- help them stop the drug cartels. instead we have presidents, administrations like the past one, that would send 2,000 weapons to the drug cartels instead of stopping them. it's a new day. thank god it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: i move that we do now hereby adjourn. 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 adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until moon on monday