mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: during consideration of this resolution all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: house resolution 382 waives the requirement of clause 6 of rule 18 -- 13 requiring a 2/3 vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported by the rules committee. this would allow for the same day consideration of any resolution reported through the legislative day of august 2, 2011. this rule will ensure the congress has the necessary tools to pass a bill that ensures we cut spending without defaulting on our national debt. madam speaker, today you will hear my friends the democrats argue about a closed process, but you will not hear them discuss the unprecedented spending spree that my

>> yes, mr. polis. i think there's widespread agreement that our corporate tax code is badly in need of fixing. if you look at the overall corporate tax rate, it is higher than most of our competitors. but if you look at the effective u.s. tax rate, because of all the loopholes, we're actually lower than a lot of our competitors. and so all those tax breaks, tax expenditures, create strange economic incentives. which is why we agree that tax reform on the corporate side can bring down the rate, broaden the base and at the same time you can raise some revenue in the process. for this reason, this gets to mr. woodall's bill. if somebody comes in and is able to get an expenditure that we decide that's unnecessary, eliminate it for the purpose of deficit reduction. if you have some special interest that comes to congress and says, ok, give me a special interest tax break, our view is you should be able to eliminate that and reduce the deficit. the view that you have put forth in the republican budget is if

mr. polis, my colleague on the rules committee, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. webster: during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. webster: mr. speaker, i rise today to support this rule and the underlying bill. the resolution 337 provides for an open rule consideration for house resolution -- h.r. 2354, the energy and water appropriation act of 2012. this rule provides for ample debate and opportunities for the members of the minority and majority to participate in that debate. the rule places no limitations on the number of amendments to be considered as long as they comply with the rules of the house. this continues the speaker's and the rule chairman's desire and commitmen

mr. polis: mr. speaker, there are ongoing negotiations about how to deal with our nation's budget deficit. and while we need to make the top cuts as part of the package, we also need new revenues, one idea for new revenues would be to regulate and tax marijuana and hemp across the country. 15 states and the district of columbia have various degrees of medical marijuana or legalized marijuana. rather than have any taxes at the federal level that produces income, we effectively have 100% tax. it's confiscated by the federal government if discovered. by reducing the tax rate to be in line with alcohol and tobacco, we will generate tens of billions of dollars for revenue to he lee dues the deficit and it won't make marijuana or hemp legal in any jurisdiction in this country where it's currently illegal. it will simply collect revenue from the states that have chosen to go the route of medical marijuana and create revenue for the taxpayers to bring to the table as part of this deal. i encourage my collea

mr. polis seems to suggest -- mr. gibbs: thank you. mr. polis seems to suggest that states would allow polluters to pollute under h.r. 2018 unless this amendment is adopted. nothing can be further from the truth. in it would degrade water quality, nobody would agree to it. if you had a permit holder who is in significant noncompliance, does that negate water quality provisions for the permit holder may be polluting? of course not. nothing in h.r. 2018 allows the permit holder to violate the terms of a permit. i urge all members to oppose the polis amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, is recognized. mr. polis: the question as to how much time remains on both sides. the chair: the gentleman has two minutes. mr. polis: i'd like to yield to the gentleman from new york one minute, mr. bishop. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. bishop: this is a well thought out and well conceived amendment. i support the amendment offered by the ge

mr. polis: i would like to inquire how many speakers remain on the gentleman from texas' side? mr. sessions: i appreciate the question. we are through with our speakers and would encourage the gentleman to finish his side. and then we'll close. mr. polis: how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york has two minutes left. ms. slaughter: i thank you very much. i shall use that to close. my colleague i understand has no more speakers. mr. speaker, this rule and this bill will do nothing but get in the way of the important work of an agency designed to help consumers being taken advantage of by inscrupulous lenders. the consumer financial protection bureau is not even up and running yet. there is no reason to think it won't work exactly as intended. and is that what the majority is afraid of? are they afraid that cfpb will make prices clear? that they'll make terms and conditions clear? that thee will ensure that mortgage disclosures are short, relevant, and underst

mr. polis: thank you, madam chair. this amendment strikes a very dangerous precedent for congress to somehow micromanage the training processes of military chaplains. we have military chaplains from diverse faith backgrounds, we have many faiths, in fact the majority of faiths that, for instance, don't sanctify gay marriage. we have other faiths, i'm a member of the reformed jewish faith and there are christian faith which is do sanction same-sex unions. likewise, it's an important part of chaplain traping that they're allowed to counsel against, for instance, homosexual acts or extra marital heterosexual acts, that's a part of chaplaincy training as well. for congress to interfere with the military processes of chaplaincy training is absurd and unprecedented. with regard to this particular training program, i'd like to ask my friend from kansas, mr. huelskamp, if i could just yield a moment to him, if he's read this particular training manual that he's seeking to defund here? i yield to the ge

amendment number 5 by mr. polis of colorado. amendment number 6 by mr. connolly of virginia. amendment number 9 by mr. blumenauer of oregon. amendment number 10 by mr. carnahan of missouri. amendment number 1 by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-144 by the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-144 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooper

mr. polis. >> thank you, again. given that this bill has not been through many legislative committees or subjective any hearings i think an open rule should be made in order and i would therefore be supporting this motion. i also want to inquire again we have briefly discussed yesterday who was the sponsor of the bill, and i think the chairman claimed the bill. i asked the same thing with regard to the amendment i would like to inquire again there's no name on the amendment that appear on the desk and i would like to inquire who is the sponsor of this amendment to the bill. >> the rules committee is putting this in place. this is something done by tradition both political parties many times and that's the way -- >> to be clear are you saying that there is no member that is the sponsor of this amendment? >> it is being done by the rules committee and if the gentleman wants to as you all associate me with that with you are welcome to characterize it in any way you want because i know there is not

mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. what's being talked about today in terms of inserting language into our united states constitution that constrains fiscal policy is nothing more or nothing less than a perversion of our democratic republic. it would take a major power away from the people of this country and replace it with an arbitrary percentage, 18%, 19.7%, whatever that percentage is that they proposed to put into the constitution as a percentage of g.d.p. to spend on government takes a basic power away from the people, to elect representatives to have those discussions. that's what we're here for. should it be 18%, 22%, 19%, 15%, let's debate that, let the house and let the people of this country work their will. to put that into the united states constitution in an arbitrary figure without a single hearing, without a single discussion besides one hour of debate here on the floor of the house is a perversion of the very constitution we began this session by reading into the record of the house. i yield back the b

mr. polis: mr. speaker, this smoke and mirror bill before us today stands to increase, yes, increase the deficit of the united states of america by over $100 billion. let me walk the speaker through the math here. this is why credit ratings matter. countries that have a.a. credit ratings, this is a group of them, pay an average interest on their sovereign debt of 3.75%. countries with a a.a.a. rating, this is a 10-year, pay 2.89%. that's 1.75%, almost 2% difference between a.a.a. and a.a. in passing the bill today which only has a six-month extension we are jeopardizing our a.a.a. rating thawill be incredibly hard to ever earn back. the addition on paying an extra two percentage points on your mortgage, two points more on your credit card debt, two points more on your car debt, in addition to that, mr. speaker, the government, the biggest borrower in the country, will pay more on the debt. in 10 yes that 1.75% difference, which is just taking the average, between a.a.a. and a.a., costs over $100 bil

mr. polis: mr. speaker, this smoke and mirror bill before us today stands to increase, yes, increase the deficit of the united states of america by over $100 billion. let me walk the speaker through the math here. this is why credit ratings matter. countries that have a.a. credit ratings, this is a group of them, pay an average interest on their sovereign debt of 3.75%. countries with a a.a.a. rating, this is a 10-year, pay 2.89%. that's 1.75%, almost 2% difference between a.a.a. and a.a. in passing the bill today which only has a six-month extension we are jeopardizing our a.a.a. rating that will be incredibly hard to ever earn back. the addition on paying an extra two percentage points on your mortgage, two points more on your credit card debt, two points more on your car debt, in addition to that, mr. speaker, the government, the biggest borrower in the country, will pay more on the debt. in 10 years that 1.75% difference, which is just taking the average, between a.a.a. and a.a., costs over $100

mr. polis: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: mr. speaker, the speaker of this chamber has a choice to make with 3 1/2 days remaining until we risk default on our debt and what does that mean for you? it means higher variable rates for your mortgages, it means more of our taxpayer money will have to go to interest to service these existing debt. at this point the speaker of this body has a choice. to be sure he has a negotiation ahead of him. he has compromise ahead of him. he can choose to negotiate and compromise with only those in his own party, further to the right than he is in this very body or to compromise to come to a deal with those that matter and can actually pass something in the law to prevent the default. namely, i call upon the speaker to continue negotiations with the president of the united states and the senate of the united

mr. polis: mr. speaker, this smoke and mirror bill before us today stands to increase, yes, increase the deficit of the united states of america by over $100 billion. let me walk the speaker through the math here. this is why credit ratings matter. countries that have a.a. credit ratings, this is a group of them, pay an average interest on their sovereign debt of 3.75%. countries with a a.a.a. rating, this is a 10-year, pay 2.89%. that's 1.75%, almost 2% difference between a.a.a. and a.a. in passing the bill today which only has a six-month extension we are jeopardizing our a.a.a. rating that will be incredibly hard to ever earn back. the addition on paying an extra two percentage points on your mortgage, two points more on your credit card debt, two points more on your car debt, in addition to that, mr. speaker, the government, the biggest borrower in the country, will pay more on the debt. in 10 years that 1.75% difference, which is just taking the average, between a.a.a. and a.a., costs over $100

mr. polis: mr. speaker, our country is facing an incredibly important moment as critical decisions need to be made regarding the national debt and our long-term deficit and how to constrain spending. members on both sides of this aisle recognize the reality that we need to restore fiscal responsibility in our budget. however, mr. speaker, in times of national importance we need to stay focus on what our country needs and what's best for the american people and avoid the temptation to play politics as this bill does. far too much has been carried out by the majority party under the guise of cost cutting and the deficit when it's actually policymaking to implement a hard right radical environmental agenda which can actually cost more money in both the short, medium and long term. mr. speaker, the cuts proposed by the majority in bill has everything to do with implementing radical anti-environmental ideology. the bill makes sweeping cuts to critical programs to protect the public's health, reduce our e

mr. polis: mr. speaker, i rise today to discuss h.r. 268. america has not had a more pro-israel president than president obama. the president has unwaveringly ensured they protected their citizens and worked to prevent a nuclear iran. the president understands that essential to israel's security and united states security is a negotiated resolution to the israeli-palestinian conflict creating a lasting peace. the president's call for a negotiated resolution to the israeli-palestinian conflict is the pro-israel position that's absolutely essential to ensuring our ally's future. we should take an opportunity to be honest what the president did and didn't propose. they didn't say we should refer to the 1967 orders. the borders of israel and the palestinian state should have the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, a concept which is being considered a given in all the serious solutions. while fostering divisions serves the political interest of some, it's not in the larger interest of israel, palestine or the united states. i yield back the b

i have had the opportunity to visit, and including mr. polis, many great friends who are alumni of princeton university, so welcome. i hope you all have your internship year, and i guess now that i have gone through all of that, i get to hear from mr. mcgovern. [applause] >> and one of them is in turning it in the office of a former -- is in turn -- interning at the abbas of a former -- at the office of a former rules committee member. >> i will remind you that senator leahy is the author of this bill. senator leahy is the author. >> again, my time briefly, the senator cannot be the author of a house bill. >> this happens not to be a house bill. >> i believe that there is something regarding the freeing of information act -- freedom of information act. having briefly look at this bill, and i know we have to pass a bill to know what is in it, but i am fairly confident in saying that there is no freedom of information act process these in this bill currently. >> the lady bill cook >> the lady bill. -- the leahy bill? >> the leahy bill. the dreier

>> it's particularly ironic that this session of congress opened with -- mr. polis: it's particularly ironic that this session of congress opened with a reading of the constitution. there has been debate to an extent i have not seen in this body prior under either party. let's talk about what was attempted yesterday in this constitutional amendment that would essentially pass as part of a resolution. it's one thing to say we want to eliminate medicare. the house worked its will through the ryan budget, phasing out medicare for those who are under 55 years of age. the people of this country will have the opportunity to change that. we saw an election in upstate new york where i think, and most people think, that the people of this country soundly rejected the effort to eliminate medicare. but regardless, that's what elections are about. i know that in the last election, democrats didn't fare too well, a majority inform this house was elected that wanted to phase out medicare for people under 55. likewise in the next election, a majority might arise in this body that