mr. flores: mr. speaker, pursuant to the order of the house today, i move that the house do now 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 mollings is agreed to -- the motion is agreed to. accordingly, pursuant to the previous order of the house today the house stands adjourned until noon on tuesday, december 16, 2014, unless it sooner has received a message from the senate transmitting its adoption of house concurrent resolution 125. in which case the house shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent >> the house gaveling out of this pro forma session. voted for the 1.1 train dollar omnibus spending bill. that may be passed at some point this weekend. senate lawmakers have been debating programs and policies. the spending bill is expected to and later. the 114th congress will convene in full for the first time at noon on january 6 of next year. to bring you the house alive when they gavel back in

mr. flores. glad to you have here. >> i didn't see him. from oklahoma. glad to have him here. i see mr. barrow over there. he's a member who's not going to be here next year. his state is the peach state. do we have a ban on exports of peaches? yes or no? okay. we have mr. mckinley up here. do we have a bonn on the export of coal? we have miss caps from california. do we have a ban on the export of movies? i think so. we got mr. pompeo and mr. terry. do we have an export on corn? i was saving that for last, mr. chairman. my point is that there are -- in a free market economy like the united states, there are almost no commodities or products that we have a ban on. we are the free market nation in the world. they banned exports of crude oil to the united states in the '80s. and we retaliated. and also requiring that no crude oil with few exceptions could be exported from the united states. that made some economic sense and some strategic sense in the 1970s. but this isn't the 1970s. one of the key questions he already asked. what would happen if we are repealed the ban? what would happen

mr. flores. we see he's here. he's a new member of the committee. glad to have you here. mr.bud albright, staffer on the committee. >> and mr. mullen. >> i didn't see him. from oklahoma. glad to have him here. i see mr. barrow over there. he's a member who's not going to be here next year. his state is the peach state. do we have a ban on exports of peaches? yes or no? okay. we have mr. mckinley up here. do we have a ban on the export of coal? we have miss caps from california. do we have a ban on the export of movies? i didn't think so. we got mr. pompeo and mr. terry. from the corn state. do we have a ban on the export on corn? [ inaudible ] i was saving that for last, mr. chairman. my point is that there are -- in a free market economy like the united states, there are almost no commodities or products that we have a ban on. we are the free market nation in the world. they banned exports of crude oil to the united states in the and we retaliated by creating the strategic oil preserve and also requiring that no crude oil with few exceptions could be exported from the united

mr. chairman, you have been more than kind today. thank you. >> i want to mention, bill f flores is here. he will be a member of the energy and commerce committee in the 114th congress and a member of this subcommittee. since you sat there so patiently for all these hours, do you want to ask a few questions before we get out of here? >> i think i heard the voting buzzer go off. first of all, thank you for recognizing me. thank you for allowing me to have the time. i will keep my comments short. one of you -- more than one of you on the panel talked about cumbersomeness of having federal policy trying to interfere with free markets. i think that's something that we on this side of the room need to always remember, that any time that we try to violate the laws of economics, it's like violating the laws of physics. you think about gravity as an example. the more you violate the laws of gravity, the harder the impact at the end. that was one of the first things that my economics instructor taught me back when i was in college. so i think that we on our side again need to be constantl

three fine individuals and their support staffs, anthony grossy and daniel flores on the majority side and sitting over there next to mr. conyers is susan jensen and they worked together. they worked for what was best. i saw no partisanship, no gangsmanship. it was a group effort. they were also backed by the national conference of -- national bankruptcy conference, administrative office of courts, the bankruptcy judicial conference as well as the attorney's bar both for creditors and debtors. both for consumers and for the institutions. they all came together. we had many people from the academic world, experts in bankruptcy, and they pretty much identified how we ought to go. and the history of all this really is the financial crisis of 2008 which none of us want to go through again. now, we may go through something similar but we want to do everything we can do to avoid that and that's what this bill is all about. and it's to proceed under an established procedure, rule of law, which separates the united states from many, many countries. this bill follows rule of law. stearns and t bear lehman brothers and look at t