tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN November 14, 2014 10:00am-3:01pm EST
americans are put our security at risk. that is all good news. that if we cannot pay attention to this, six this, eventually, it will get to a point where there will be questions about our security. it is not unlike institutions in life and the world. we have so much going on in the world. a convergence of challenges and threats in the world. all you need to do, your business records every moment of every day. it is coming at us at once. we have to manage it. we can't lose sight of the long-term. same time we managed through the crises and we leave through coalitions and other means, but we cannot take our eye off the ball of longer-term issues and challenges to keep this institution strong. to keep himant prepared for what is coming.
new asymmetric threats. cyber. you know about those things. that is the way i look at it. bob, thank you. >> good morning. i am the deputy secretary. i would like to make a couple more remarks then they -- then we will get into questions. i would like to echo the secretary's thanks to our viewers. reviewers, matalin is not here, she is at the national nuclear security agency working on the warhead side of the problem. she could not be here because she was traveling. is having a senior enlisted right on the review was critical. we wanted to get a sense on what was happening all the way down to the deck plates of the
submarines in the silos. a had a heart problem. they were talking truth to power. it wasn't a pretty story, and they stuck to their guns. our nuclear deterrent is safe, secure, and effective today. and lest we take immediate action, the possibility of something happening in the near future goes up unacceptably. we needed to address it right away. the external reviewers, harvey and general welch, were not asked to give an assessment of whether or not the nuclear secure, ands safe, effective. they were tasked to find the gaps and vulnerability. they took this job so seriously, they reported. it wasn't done by a committee, and it is one of the most well-written, hard-hitting, and
thoughtful reports i have written. the internal and external reviewers did an excellent job and told us what we needed to do. how was the different? we have had many nuclear deterrent enterprise reviews. the senior leadership is involved this time. one thing that the internal review said, you don't have anyone looking at this as an enterprise, and you have to have someone looking at it as an enterprise. .ou have to get your reviews they have been telling you where the individual problems are. anyone lookinge at enterprise review. they recommended we consider that. the external reviewers, as a marine, really knocked me and the secretary, and punched us between the eyes.
they told us you have to take ownership of this issue mr. secretary. the secretary did. what makes this different is the nuclear enterprise deterrent review group is chaired by the number two civilian in the department. and the number two military officer in the department, and we report to the secretary. different, because of the insistence of two seasoned nuclear officers. if you do not do this as a secretariat level initiative you will go the same way as the past. so was the follow-up. there were 100 recommendations. the secretary assigned dr. jamie the coste director of analysis and evaluation shop, to put together a team to track each individual.
we had a checklist in the past. now we have metrics for everyone. ndirg whort to the i basis. on a the accountability is much different. the secretary said there will be a four chart -- four star global chart command. a three star on the air force staff. everyone will be coming in on a quarterly basis. essentially monthly or five or six week basis. the secretary will hold us accountable if we are making progress. we are making news and oversight. and the personal reliability program, if you want to get into that. .lso, the inspection regime
those are pointed out in the reviews as getting out of control. there is a saying, don't expect what you don't inspect. expectations became -- inspecting became the reason you were inspecting. they were a burden on the force. meets on therd 19th of november to make changes to the inspection regime and security regime to take the burden off of our airmen and sailors, and the officers who supervise them. the investment will be billions, not tens of billions. 10-15,000,000,000 dollars a year on the nuclear enterprise, and we will have to increase that. if you have questions we can answer those. this is a toolkit.
thread the bolts so the wrenches could attach. they were being fedex around. that is amarine, metaphor. you don't want to be sending your gauge from company to company. it was a metaphor or how far things have:. stoppedcause people reporting it. they worked around it. that is what i would like to leave you with. the people in the enterprise are unbelievable. they were able to make this deterrent safe, reliable, affect it, and secured. -- and secure. we were doing it on their backs. secretary said, we are going to stop this. that makes this different. from the leadership down, we are
invested. we won't ask the impossible of our sailors and soldiers and airmen who have been making this enterprise work. we will make it that are for them, and make sure it remains that way. >> with the pressure on the servicesudget, and the with a history of putting other priorities in front of nuclear and with the hundreds of billions it will take to recapitalize nuclear over the next couple of decades, is it time to take the nuclear budget out of the defense budget and make it its own separate entity? >> this goes back to a thing that happened over 13 years of war. beense our budgets have coming down. you say do we do this in the nuclear enterprise or this to support the war fighter? when you make a hard choice you will support the war fighter and you
will make it as best you can. we can't do that. it is gone on too long. it has to be a primary thing. if we hit sequestration this will be a major problem in this enterprise and across the enterprise. if you go to sequestration level cuts you will not be able to the, what we believe, are prudent investments to make a safe, secure deterrent. it would cascade throughout the force. this is something we talked about within the department. we think it will be a presidents president'sa budget 17 discussion. the downgrading of defense resources and to accommodate that. faces the problem. you hire a replacement program, that is expensive for the icbms.
replacements for the bomber, very expensive. we will have to address that forthrightly, and we will in the future. yes? >> can you briefly explain why it will take 10% more money to fix this problem. why it can't be done without increasing the budget. we are part about the nuclear enterprise. why will it cost more? >> the president has said his goal is a world without nuclear weapons. reduction treaty with russia is bringing us down to 1550 weapons. we need to keep those safe, secure, and effective. when your inventory comes down, it is more important that you are sure you are taking care of it. we have made a decision, with the triad having land-based
icbms, ac-based nuclear way tont, it is the best achieve a deterrent. i might ask general wilson at , you have to add people to the shipyards to allow the submarines to get through, but i may as them why we need more money and they may be able to give you examples. >> thank you for the question. infrastructure, are continuing to age. i just visited our strategic weapons facilities last week. built 25ldings were years ago, and are in good shape . it is like your 25-year-old house. things degrade over time, and you invest money to keep them up . you invest more money and maintenance time.
in the cycle for our submarines, as they get older we need our maintenance availability to trend longer as we put in more work to get them up to the highest operational level. we can reduce the maintenance cycle i hiring more people, and putting more workers on it. we are hiring more shipyard workers. in the end, adding more people cost more money. having to do more maintenance over the life as things age costs more money. >> two examples from the air force. infrastructure that supports was done in the 1960's. we have missiles --. the infrastructure and the capability has to be modernized. built up. and sustained. helicopters that we fly in the
missile fields are 1969 vintage helicopters. capitalize,ize and we need a new helicopter because the current one doesn't need the requirements for the force. that is something we will look for in the future to spend money on to bring us to the capability we need. parts of thetwo problem. we have to spend money to maintain a aging nuclear detergent enterprise and to bridget to the nuclear enterprise we will be building in the 20's. that is something we need to address. this morning, we don't have any clear answers. yes? >> a question about the culture in the force. there have been a couple of scandals in the last couple of years. reviewsous what the found about how bad the culture was, and what is being done to
address the issues within the force. >> these would best be addressed by all three. i would like to start with the admiral, then go to the air force. >> i would like to start off by andng, most of our team warriors come to work every day with integrity, and commitment. there have been some stumbling tocks that we have managed remove those folks. when you look at the discussion we have had, and the amount of -- ourour worriers have warriors have in bridging that gap to make sure it is safe, secure, and affect, they are on board. i have visited all of the nuclear bases more than twice in and aases over my tenure
year of being u.s. command and strategic command. i have met with large and small groups. most of our folks are very committed to the point a were perturbed at the performance of those who demonstrated flaws in their integrity. their very passionate about the business, and very hopeful as they look at the commitment the department has had associated with this mission which is very important to our country. , what is happened over the years is a culture of micromanagement. today, across the air force and the nuclear business, you will see it is about leadership and empowerment. we are empowering our airmen and removing obstacles to their success. they are excited and motivated about the empowerment that they
have not seen before. of our folks are the ones that are messing up. our folks aref amazing people. they come to work every day, are committed to the mission, no it is important. they live our core values every day. >> after discovery of the incident in charleston, the director of naval reactors did an investigation and decided to step back and look broadly across the nuclear energy forces. outsider groups come in and ask if it was about culture. the conclusion is, it is not about coulter. for values exhibit of courage, honor, and commitment. if it was not sent a manic we had to look at what happened in charleston.
that gives to the report. is thethe factors workload at charleston. the instructor workload, the workday. came to the point that folks felt it was ok to take a shortcut. leaders had to ask if they set the environment correctly. that is why we will be hiring additional instructors. to get the workload balance right, so our sailors continue to exhibit courage, honor, and commitment. wonder if i may be able to ask major olson to come up. because of the number of enlisted in the nuclear enterprise are in the thousands. they are the bulk of the security force, maintenance force. there are the backbone of the
enterprise. perhaps major olson can address this issue on culture. of the troops come to work focused on doing the right thing, instilling the right pride and right drive for the mission. you have the 10% that blame the culture that they grew up on and try to spread that culture among the workforce. continually way out the 10% that try to take the shortcut. the culture is a culture we have across all services. to allow democracy to rein in this country. like the defense department has been implementing fixes. he said that you have went to a variety of bases.
i'm wondering why the pentagon has waited so long? wilson, the review -- havey of the senior no experience with the system and have been on the base less than a year. what have you been doing to mitigate that situation? >> that was a special case in the external review. i may ask john or larry to address it. the leader of the secretary and deputy secretary was very thisul to point out that is where you have to look. it is an austere and remote base. some of the decisions were indicative of a lack of real attention. the secretary is gone before,
and he is going with secretary james. i am going in february, because they told me if i would not go to mind -- is that i did not go. with either be like to address it? time when the catechism of why not? that expressed everyone myerstood why not and that not mission was the toughest in the air force. there is a sense of pride that went with being from there. the strategic air command, if you had not served there, you weren't a real nuclear airmen. over the years, that gradually disappeared.
it didn'tsion moved, get the kind of emphasis that is demanded in the kind of environment to existed. it is the academy of the northern care -- northern terror -- northern tare. you find some of the oldest facilities in the air force. you find an extreme reluctance to accept an assignment. the secretary is working on instilling that special pride that always went with being able to do the toughest job in the toughest place.
i think they are taking actions to restore that attitude. it will not be an easy thing to accomplish. >> can you give us examples? 60's, everyone in the united states knew of the nuclear mention -- new the nuclear mission mattered. the public was behind it. i don't think you find a lot of americans today who worry about it. how do you convey to the airmen ?hat it does, on a daily basis do you visit the folks in minot? the civilians? what do you do? of pointed out very carefully that you would be surprised how much these people know. you'd be surprised how much attention the maintenance guy that works on the icbm or the
truck driver that has to move things around on the roads along with all of the oil industry trucks. you'd be amazed how much they know about what their leadership to say, and what the public is saying. stop to restoring pride in what they do, is for the senior leadership to say how important this is. we move from the part of our former government officials who suggest we don't need icbms, and they don't hear any response from the senior leadership, we have to move from that to constant reminders of the most senior leadership that this is .ob one this is important, and we value the people perform this mission. we have seen that happening. we have seen that at a level we
haven't seen for years, but it has to continue. we have seen it before. it did not last long enough to bring about lasting change. harvey --mirable admiral harvey and i are hopeful this will be a lasting change. there has to be reminders to those people that it is job one. they are valued. we understand it is a tough duty and you should be proud of performing it. >> one more question. this is secretary james' third visit to minot. she has been to every nuclear base twice. in terms of the manning experience it is one we addressed early. plused --james
secretary james added to our manpower. we're making sure we have the right experience, the right numbers, at the right basis. we are focused on min to get the otmbers and skillot -- on min to get the numbers and skill at our nuclear bases. we did the bottom of review. review.m up there is a 95% overlap. we agree with everything in the reports. there were well done. we have been moving from the manning,months from training, there be, and investments. we have been moving out for the last seven months to do this. first, i was wondering the
timing of when you would be looking to make investments. you spoke about maintenance that you have on the aircraft carrier fleet that uses the same public shipyard. how do you ensure the investments are going to the nuclear submarine? or to a non-nuclear part of the force? thingsof the distractive of last year when we hit sequestration and the government shutdown, on the furloughs and the hiring freezes on the thelian workforce, we took fair approach and said we could not exempt anyone in the force. we have to treat everyone the the same,-- because this is an appalling thing to happen. you can see the cascading effects it is had on the maintenance availability. we have approved the hiring
authority for the navy to go after 2400 folks right now. you will see the actual dollar figures attached said that when we drop our budget on february of 2015. the show, do you want to say anything? --michelle, do you want to say anything? >> by raising the level of nuclear promotional workers, that helps across the force. we are hiring now. >> i would like to leave the --t word with admirable admiral haney who is --. the secretary said, we believe. our deeds will follow our words.
this is the most important mission. it is critical to the safety and security of our nation. i would like to leave the last word with admiral haney, and thank you for coming out this morning. >> thank you mr. secretary. strategick at our forces, it is not just the triad. it is everything from the sensing mechanisms we have with the intelligence apparatus, or when some country launches something. and determines it to be a threat against the united states of america or a threat against one of our allies. or is it a test within one of their countries? we want to quickly assess that. with the information through our nuclear national nuclear apparatus so we can quickly to the right set of leaders with that decision
apparatus to go from the president of the united states down to our warriors associated with the platforms i'm talking about. that is part of it all the way to the warheads. we are doing the business right. in a safe, secure, and effective manner. you don't read about it or see mushroom clouds as a result. we must continue that. it is important in the 21st century. continue that we can to benefit as we have from our strategic capability. the may have been successful, they have been under the radar scope. the good news is, the great work has been done by professionals through these reviews and the internal reviews the services have been involved in.
also, the strategic command. on this. put a lens to see where we need to go for the future. giving serious consequences of having a miscalculation, and not ability we strategic need in the world. it is good to see the attention it is getting today, because it is important for our future going forward. you. on the defense department's proposed changes to the nuclear weapons infrastructure. secretary hegel's call for investment will come 10 days before the investment to negotiationsear
with iran. " the administration and emplaced to demand the iranians disarmed their nuclear infrastructure. that is from the new york times. the secretary testified before the house armed services committee. you can find that at www.c-span.org. the house will come back at noon to finish work on a bill introduced by bill cassidy of louisiana that would authorize construction of the keystone xl pipeline. it will be debated next week in the senate. the house is in at noon eastern. we will show you some debate from the house floor. >> pipelines are the energy lifeline of our daily activities.
they are saved, and cost-effective to transport products that fuel our economy. they supply two thirds of the energy used in the united states. the keystone pipeline will be in addition to this network increasing our nations supply of oil and reducing the cost. this house passed last year. ince the passing of hr three >> the house is not in order. please remove your conversation from the house for. -- from the house floor. the house will be in order. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania will be recognized. the state department
completed a final environmental januarytatement on first of 2014. is most recent excuse pending litigation and nebraska. hr 56 point 82 takes that into account and allows for rerouting. there is no need to delay this important project given the benefits it will provide. this will be a bill to economic development. this pipeline does not require one federal dollar to build. it will create jobs. departmentate reconfirmed this last january. the state estimated it will produce $42,000. this project will have positive impact. economic impact, including $3.1
billion in construction and support services. taxes for the project will be over $55 million spread over 27 counties. this impact is substantial. the keystone xl pipeline is the most extensively studied pipeline project in history -- in the history of this country. spills and make this the safest pipeline ever built. we are facing a manufacture stalemate that can be described as paralysis by analysis. the majority of americans know this is the right thing to do, so the congress will lead where the president has refused. improve thete jobs, economy, and improve the nation's economic security. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
i yield the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from oregon is recognized. >> the gentleman mentioned taxpayers. i think taxpayers may be confirmed that this -- concerned that this foreign entity will ship oil over 1700 miles over america will be exempt from a fee that all of the american countries, and others using our becauses, have to pay of a bizarre ruling from the irs -- who often make bizarre rulings. they will not be required to contribute toward the oil spill liability fund. u.s. taxpayers they be concerned that it foreign entity that will p oil to an export zone to process and exported in a tax
exempt area, will not be paying much or any taxes in the u.s. except for property taxes. and will not contribute to the tax fund in case there is a still. -- a spill. other companies will be liable to pay for their mass. -- their mess. part is broad litigation. this bill would give a foreign entity the rights to take private property in the united states of america, in nebraska. -- by eminent domain. i'm not aware of another time we have given of foreign entity the right to take the property, the private property, of u.s. citizens. the citizens won a case in
district court. this bill would nullify the ruling they won, which is still under a pill -- under appeal for the supreme court in that state. a foreign entity will not have to pay taxes that others will have to pay. they will take the private property of u.s. taxpayers and residents, or what? -- for what? there will be jobs and jobs are good, but there are a lot of other construction going on in the fracking area and liquid natural gas exporting facilities that would provide employment in the construction trade. there will be 35 permanent jobs for this tax exempt sludge that will be shipped to a zone in texas, where it is most likely to be exported. gas, need export more oil,
from the united states of america? will that lower the price at the pump for americans? i don't think so. exporting 422,000 barrels of gasoline a day. millions of barrels of diesel, yet truckers are being extorted at the punk. -- at the pump. oft is 54 billion gallons diesel. yet they are saying there's a diesel shortage. we are exporting that, and now we're going to take this g oop, processor and exported. that will help. -- that won't help. there are environmental issues. cars and creates more greenhouse
gas than other forms of fossil fuel extraction. largeill destroy forever portions of the forest. that is a canadian issue, and if i lived in canada i would be protesting. we don't need to facilitate it in the united states of america by building a pipeline. that will use water resources to create waste pits that will be ,olluted with the extracts except for the part that is shipped to be processed and shipped overseas. i don't see this as something we should preempt the laws of the united states. there were 2.5 million comments. the republicans don't care about public comments. that areon comments raising concerns about various
aspects of the project. i will say, bad legislation and good politics. we are trying to get someone elected to the senate that is currently a member of the house. the senate is going ahead with the bill, so the house decided they would bring up the bill. it is nothing but bare naked politics and the use of a house representative to promote someone's candidacy. i think that is a disgrace to this institution. with that i would reserve the balance of our time. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania is wrecking dies. -- the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. bill is about jobs. it will create jobs. tens of thousands of american
jobs. enhance our energy independence and strengthen our national security. i want to talk about the safety of the pipeline. trans-canadian has agreed to a number of additional measures to make the keystone pipeline the safest ever built. it will go above and beyond current registration. steel whichsure will reduce the chance of a pipeline release. furthermore, transcanada will provide enhanced right of way expectations and transparencies.
i believe in the above energy solution. that includes this. be more energy independent. i urge my the safest college sees -- i urge my colleagues to support this when we need the jobs. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. the javaone from oregon has 10 minutes remaining. the gentleman from pennsylvania has 11 minutes. i yield two minutes. >> the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. >> i rise in opposition.
will go through america, not to america. now, we might ask, on a day when u.s. oil production was announced to reach a 30-year high of more than nine million barrels, why we would be even considering this. well, it's not because this fits into our energy picture. we will risk oil spills that are a mess to clean up. and we here that oil spills won't occur. the transcanada pipeline, also known as keystone, had 12 separate oil spills in its first year of operation, tens of thousands of gallons and hard to clean up and as you also heard, this doesn't count as petroleum and therefore, they don't pay into the oil spill liket trust fund. so taxpayers are on the hook for
this difficult cleanup. the real problem is none of these points, but it is taking us down the road where we should not be going. this is the most carbon-intensive liquid fuel, if you want to call it liquid, that we could possibly use. it is changing our very climate in ways that are deadly and costly. we shouldn't be going in this direction. it is that simple. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from oge reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma for two minutes. mr. mullin: it is baffleling to me that this debate is still going on. we have to reduce our dependency
on oversees -- overseas oil. yet many play political gamemanship. i have seen what effect it has had on my district. this pipeline would provide high-paying jobs that are well above minimum wage. exactly, the type of jobs this body likes to talk about. yet, despite the economic benefits, this pipeline would provide -- there has been zero action by this president and his administration. so today, i stand in support of h.r. 5682, as a call to this president and the senate, that it's time to approve the keystone pipeline. if they truly want to help the american people, they will join us in moving this legislation forward. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania
reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> we are considering today another bill to force approval of the keystone pipeline outside of the regular order required for all international energy infrastructure projects. this is a very early christmas president from the united states congress to someone specific canadian company. mr. huffman: the vote exempts transcanada from the permitting standards that all american companies are held to. rst yet, they will be exempt from paying into the trust fund. so merry christmas transcanada. and what gift can we expect in return? carbon pollution and heavy crude shipped through our country to export terminals and higher gas
prices. t's remember, transcanada is on-line saying it would increase the price of oil. instead of deliberative process, the g.o.p. majority is rushing to raise gas prices in this country. this christmas present to transcanada is like a lump of coal to u.s. consumers at the pump and a lump of coal for communities who are sure to be impacted by this pipeline when something goes wrong and a huge lump of coal for our climate. we still have another 41 shopping days until christmas. no need for us to play santa for transcanada today. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr.
kelly. mr. kelly: this is a jobs bill, not only in the house of representatives but a job bill in the senate. dr. cassidy's bill is about creating tens of thousands of jobs for hard-working americans. $8 billion private investment that won't cost the american taxpayer one cent. it is about america taking the lead for energy. for six years, this house has passed pieces of legislation that would have created the keystone pipeline. every one of those died in the senate. now, the senate is entertaining this because of one job, tens of thousands of jobs that all these americans who you turned a deaf ear and blind eye to. one job, one senator who has the possibility of losing her seat because of the keystone pipeline. isn't it ironic that we sit here today and try to spin this into
something it is not. it is a jobs bill, an american bill that is going to create billions of dollars in revenue. and i ask my friends on the other side, don't look no further than last tuesday. last tuesday was a referendum on incompetency. open your eyes and ears to the american people and let us create jobs and let us reach the energy independence that we need to succeed in the american economy. it is about one job in the senate or thousands of americans that have been held hostage by an administration that refuses to move forward a jobs bill when they say we have saved jobs, the one job they are trying to save is in the senate. it has nothing to do with policy. it is all politics. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i have no
additional speakers. does the gentleman from pennsylvania have additional speakers? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon -- mr. defazio: i have no additional speakers. mr. shuster: i have one additional speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i yield one minute to the gentleman from louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it's been more than six years since application was filed in the keystone pipeline. this is my background and this is where i made my living. despite the opposition, the benefits of the pipeline far jout weigh any negative impact. construction will lead to thousands of jobs, well-paying jobs when americans are struggling to find work. reliable source of energy has the potential to reduce gas prices and expand refineries and lessen our dependence on foreign
energy sources. the pipeline signifies a secure source of energy for our country if needed. it is not an economic issue but a security issue as well. thousands of america caps are out of work. i challenge you, mr. speaker, for those who say these are temporary jobs. talk to the men and women who bought cars and houses with these temporary jobs that you ll -- are they temporary legacies or retirements? i thank our congressman for introducing this bill that not only fulfills the requirements but also protects the rights of private property owners should they be affected by the pipeline route. with my past experience, i can say that this project is no different than the thousands of other pipelines we lay each year. it crosses national borders and
gives the president to delay it. the president is bhaking political promises when it should be deemed practical. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: let's just sum up. we have the most extraordinarily carbon-intensive way of creating diesel and extracting these tar sands. the contributions, believe that greenhouse gases are beneficial or aren't a problem. we have a foreign entity that will be exempt from paying taxes like u.s. entities and through the oil spill liability trust fund and we will be stuck with the bill. we have a foreign entity, granted, they are our friends and neighbors in canada, but foreign, private corporation
being given the right of eminent domain over citizens in the state of nebraska. we have, in fact, this company saying it's likely, if this pipeline is completed that gasoline prices will go up in midwestern areas of the united states and their production will be exported from the united states. so it's not going to be a direct benefit to americans ordeal with energy independence, which we heard earlier. so all in all -- and, of course, we are cutting short the evaluation process that every other energy-producing entity in america has to go through in terms of environmental reviews and of course, we are cutting off any meaningful consideration of the 2.5 million comments that have been received by the state department. but, hey, if it could help a
house member be a senate member and get elected to the senate, so, i guess it's a bad bill whose time has come. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i would argue this more supplies of oil generally drive prices down, not up. first this pipeline safety is officially moved through this country safely. it's the safest way to move these products. mr. shuster: and there's been numerous additional mitigation measures the state department said would reduce the risk of release. second, the state state department has said this will create 40,000 jobs, over $3 billion in construction contracts and, finally, as i said from sourcing more crude oil from our friendly neighbor to the north, it will reduce our reliance and most likely
reduce the cost of energy to the american people. so for these reasons, mr. speaker, i encourage all of our members to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. >> thank you very much. i'd like to make a parliamentary inquiry and ask how much time is alkited to both sides at this -- allocated to both sides at this point. the speaker pro tempore: 15 minutes is allocated to each side. >> thank you very much. mr. speaker, at this time i would like to yield five minutes to the author of this bill, the distinguished dr. bill cassidy of louisiana, a
member of the energy and commerce committee, a real leader in trying to bring about energy independence in america and at this time i yield him five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. cassidy: thank you, mr. speaker. it has been over six years since backers of the keystone x.l. pipeline first submitted an application to the u.s. state department on september 19, 2008, to build this energy infrastructure project and bring jobs and greater energy security to america. now, building the keystone x.l. pipeline would create more than 40,000 average annual jobs, over a one to two-year construction period, putting $2 billion into workers and their families' pockets and giving a you much-needed boost -- giving a much-needed boost to the american construction sector. in addition, tens of thousands of jobs would be supported throughout the supply chain. jobs for manufactures that make the steel pipes, the valves,
pumps, control and safety devices, required for major pipelines. in addition to my home state of louisiana, manufactures in georgia, west virginia, throughout the country, would benefit from the construction of this infrastructure project. now, economists have found that the pipeline would create 20,000 manufacturing jobs, an additional 118,000 spinoff jobs, including jobs within the u.s. refinery and petro chemical facilities. this would employ and improve the jobs for americans who right now are struggling. refiners in louisiana and along the gulf coast would benefit from a reliable supply of heavy crude transported through the keystone x.l. pipeline. these petro chemical plants employ families that are right now having the hardest time in this economy, this gives them those better jobs. the final state department review found the pipeline would
create over 40,000 jobs without significant environmental impact. now, note, canada's oil sands are going to be developed with or without this pipeline. the canadian government is already on record stating that oil sands derive from crude oil -- derived from crude oil will be exported to overseas markets like china, it will be shipped on rail and in oil tankers, which may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions versus transportation to the u.s. by pipeline. now, the case for proving the keystone x.l. pipeline is clear and obvious. so why haven't the president approved it? -- hasn't the president approved it? and why up to this point hasn't senator reid allowed a vote on approving keystone x.l.? if there was ever legislation that should not be difficult to get through the senate, it is the keystone x.l. pipeline. by the way, pew research reports that over 60% of americans support it, as do
major labor unions, every state along the pipeline's route, and the majority of the house of representatives on eight separate occasions voting on similar bills in the affirmative. so here we are on the ninth attempt. it has been 539 days, a year and half, since the house first sent a keystone approval bill to the senate in this congress. that legislation could have been considered, amended, passed or completely replaced, yet the bills collected dust on senator reid's desk. the bill considered today that i introduced is the language asked for by the senate. so, we are going to make it as easy as possible for the senate to finally get a bill to the president's desk that approves this long overdue keystone x.l. pipeline. thanks to the transportation and infrastructure committee, the energy and commerce committee, the natural resources committee, the rules
committee, and house leadership for working with me to clear a path for this expedited consideration. upon passage of this bill in the house, it will go to the senate for approval, then to the president where i hope he signs h.r. 5682 into law. i want to thank chairmans upton, whitfield, shuster, sessions and hastings for this work on this important legislation. i particularly want to thank the american people for sending a signal in this last election that they want we in washington, d.c., to work together to accomplish commonsense legislation that will create jobs for families which are struggling now, but because of legislation like this, will have more opportunity and a better future. this is a perfect example of what the american people have asked us to do. i encourage my colleagues to join me in approving the keystone x.l. pipeline, to finally provide 40,000 promised jobs to the american people.
thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: today we are voting once again to grant special treatment to transcanada's keystone x.l. pipeline. this is the third time this congress and the eighth time since the republicans took control of the house. instead of helping families deal with pressing problems, we're helping canadian tar sands producers and pipeline builders. we're spending our time trying to exempt a foreign company from the rules that every other company in america has to follow. this bill is not an energy policy.
it is about a single pipeline that will allow canadian tar sands to flow across our country for export to other countries. that's oil going through the united states but not to the united states. we don't need this oil. we have our own sources of oil. and we are using less oil because of our efficiency in new cars getting better mileage. this bill will not lower gasoline prices by a single penny. it may even raise them in some places. and it will at most create just a few dozen permanent jobs. there will be some temporary jobs for construction, once they're gone, they're gone. this bill is a regulatory earmark. it will waive applicable environmental review requirements and risk our
farmlands and our water supplies. in fact, it even exempts the keystone pipeline from paying into the oil spill fund that other oil companies have to contribute to. that means if there's a problem with that pipeline, well, there's no payment by keystone x.l. to that fund to make those who are hurt whole. that means that if there's a spill there won't be the money to clean it up. the keystone x.l. tar sands pipeline is a terrible deal for america. we get all the risks while the oil companies reap the rewards. but even if you support it, this bill is a harmful and unnecessary piece of legislation. the state department is carrying out their review of this highly controversial project. they've got millions of
comments and the federal agencies are reviewing these comments. h.r. 5682 would approve the pipeline by fiat, lock out the public, eliminate the president's authority to balance competing interests, and stop federal agencies from ensuring that if the project does go forward we do it as safely as possible. forget about those comments. we'll just pass a bill and make it happen, rather than consider all the other issues that would be appropriate to look at in approving or disproving this pipeline. i oppose this legislation for all of these reasons. there is one more important reason why i oppose the bill. the tar sands pipeline will worsen climate change. keystone x.l. would create a dependence on tar sands crude, reversing the carbon pollution
reductions we've been working so hard to accomplish. according to some experts, building the keystone x.l. pipeline will triple production of the tar sands and that's totally inconsistent with any future scenario for avoiding catastrophic climate. just this week the united states and china agreed to mutual pledges to fight climate change. and i commend president obama and president xi for that accomplishment. this is a really important development. for the last two decades, antagonisms between the united states and china has stimied efforts to reach a global climate agreement. those days we hope are finally over. the u.s. and china are now both pledging strong joint action. the world has been waiting decades for the u.s. and china
to reach an understanding on climate. now that moment has finally arrived. and yet instead of working on a real energy policy, one that would move us toward a new, low-carbon energy future, instead of working on a clean energy future that would create lots of new jobs, real jobs, permanent jobs, and keep pace with china's clean energy investments, instead of trying to protect our irreplaceable environment and our drinking water supplies, republicans have set their sights on passing a special law for a special interest. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished majority whip, a member of the energy and commerce committee and a strong leader for energy independence for america, mr.
scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank chairman whitfield for yielding. especially i want to thank my colleague from louisiana, congressman cassidy, for the leadership that he had in fighting hard to get this bill brought to the floor. so we can finally get the keystone pipeline built. if you look at this issue, this is all about jobs and it's all about american energy security, mr. speaker. what is the keystone pipeline mean for america? according to the obama administration, 40,000 jobs will be created here in america, good jobs that our economy needs. in fact, this is not a partisan issue, this is a very bipartisan issue. republicans and democrats alike have come together and said, build the keystone pipeline. even though labor unions have said, build the keystone pipeline, unfortunately just a small group of radical environmental extremists have held this project hostage and president obama's hidden behind studies to say, don't do it.
so now congress can come together in a bipartisan way and say, let's get this thing done. let's actually work with canada, who's a friend, mr. speaker, and bring almost a million barrels a day of oil from canada that will no longer need to get from countries who -- that we'll no longer need to get from countries who don't like us. this isn't about a million new barrels coming into america. it's deciding who we're going to do business with. when we trade with canada, we get 80 cents on the dollar back. when we send billions of dollars to middle eastern countries, sometimes that money's used against us, against our troops. and we get less than 50 cents on the dollar back. everything about this says do it, says yes, stop saying no to american jobs, stop saying no to american energy security. this is an issue that brings people together and there was a message that the american people sent last week. they don't want a go-alone president. they want a washington that can work for them. this is a classic example of
how republicans and democrats can come together and say yes to a project that creates good jobs for our country and creates american energy security for our nation. let the united states agree with canada to cross the border and they have to get the permits from each state and all the great jobs that would come from that pipeline and the billions of dollars of private investment. the time for study is over and time for action and time to say yes to the keystone pipeline. i urge approval from my colleagues and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: everybody in
louisiana is clearly for it. the senator from louisiana has been a strong supporter of it and the would-be replacement senator is for it. the republican whip from louisiana is strongly for it. the oil companies are strongly for it. but to say that those who oppose it are radical environmental extremists seems to me is quite a stretch. there are a lot of responsible people against this legislation, even those who support the pipeline, because they would argue this is not the way to make a decision. put a bill on the floor to ignore all the comments, all the evaluations, all the considerations. the people in nebraska are not going to be happy about that. maybe in louisiana, they will be. but other places would like to know that pipelines are safe and
their drinking water is not going to be jeopardize. i yield to the distinguished member of our committee, who is he ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. rush. mr. rush: i want to begin by thanking the ranking member of the full committee, mr. waxman, for his outstanding leadership on this and other matters that have come before the energy and commerce committee. i want to say to him that his leadership has been inspiring on so many issues. mr. speaker, i strongly disagree with the process that the majority side has undertaken in -- to hace tillly h.r. this bill to the floor.
the keystone pipeline is not key to america's energy future. and we just disregard the merits or lack thereof, of the keystone pipeline itself. the majority just recently as this past couple of weeks made promises to the american people that they will return to regular order and bring bills to the floor of this congress. and mr. speaker, here we are, once again, promises made, promises broken. this bill was brought to this hour fter one hour, one of debate and without the
ability for the minority side to bring forth any amendments, not one amendment can we bring to this bill. where is the promise of bipartisanship on the other side of this particular matter regarding this bill? promises made to the american people equals promises broken by the majority. mr. speaker, this bill would automatically approve the keystone xl pipeline even though this pipeline has no legal route through the state of nebraska, where there's a case pending in the courts before a local judge regarding some of the issues that surrounds this illegal
pipeline. why can't the people of nebraska , the citizens of nebraska have the time and the consideration just to make sure that this and ine is safe for them their drinking water and their environment. there are other states that this pipeline is going to be traveling through. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rush: could i have one more minute? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. rush: there is an independent process taking place and this bill should shortcut the approval process. and would allow -- this bill would allow a foreign company to seize property from the american
people, particularly those who are in nebraska. additionally, this bill seeks to usurp the president's ability and authority to ultimately approve or reject the project as instead use this pipeline a political football to score some elective advantages. broughtker,ight times this bill or a version of the bill to the floor. don't we get it? eight is enough. enough. "eight is enough." . i yield back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i recognize a
mber of the energy of -- and olson. commerce, mr. mr. olson: mr. speaker, this week, the house will pass a bill to complete the keystone pipeline system. he first pipeline in the system, known only as keystone. at pipeline has been sending 600,000 barrels a day from canada to illinois. it has been four years and counting. and the water in nebraska is still clean. the second pipeline this system is called the keystone xl.
it sends the same oil into merica as keystone does, but slightly longer and different route. it has been approved twice. secretary kerry has approved it once. and yet, the politician in chief has threatened to veto the keystone xl pipeline. anada will export their oil. or it goes to china. president obama has on simple choice, oil for america or oil
for china. oil for america or oil for china. please join congress in choosing america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: may i inquire how much time we have on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 4 1/2 remaining and the gentleman from kentucky has 5 1/2 remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. mr. whitfield: i would like to yield to the distinguished the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fits pat rick -- fitzpatrick, two minutes. mr. fitzpatrick: i have come to the floor in support of the keystone pipeline project asking for the senate and the white house to put politics aside in
favor of this critical project. with bipartisan support, the house has passed eight separate pieces of legislation to clear the way for approval of the most studied pipeline in american history. each time these measures were blocked in the senate and condemned by a president crippled by indecision that would put tens of thousands of americans to work. i rise in support of the keystone pipeline, joining my parties, which would certify the secretary of state's final environmental impact statement from a year ago and put our country on independence. while the house has taken definitive action to advance this critical goal, the senate has waited until only politically advantageous to do so even though it ep joyce majority support. while i'm pleased about the
benefits of this commonsense project which will grow our economy and strengthen our national security, it is a shame that it took election-year politics and not the best interests. this pipeline is a vital piece of a plan that creates yobs and more opportunity and i encourage the senate and president to deliver on the promise of embracing an all of the above strategy that works for the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: i recognize the entlelady from illinois, two minutes. ms. schakowsky: there are three umbers that we ought to know about. the grees celsius before
earth becomes catastrophic. of igatons the amount carbon dioxide that can be emitted before we reach rreversible global warmings. the alberta tar sands and nearly half the carbon the world can burn. keystone xl is the fastest and perhaps the only way to fully develop the alberta tar sands. it would move one million important day of the dirtiest oil. it would pass through our nation's most important land and water sources, including one that supplies 0% of the united states drinking water. and those who claim there is no serious risk of a spill have
short memory. there were 12 spills in the first year of its operation and 30 spills in just over four years. so what i'm saying today is that this is dangerous and not the best way to create jobs. three jobs are created for every dollar invested in renewable energies over the pipeline and so if we want jobs, if we want clean energy and a good environment, we should vote down this legislation. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois yields back. the gentleman from cal reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: i think i have the right to close. so if they would like to proceed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: i yield two minutes
to the gentleman from missouri, mr. cleaver. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cleaver: thank you, member. look, this legislation is very likely going to be approved. and that's sad for a number of reasons. let me just declare here what i declare in my districts. i believe in earmarks because i think it is constitutional. i think it is almost politically obscene to give what the constitution says is our responsibility to the white house, no matter who's there. and so that's why i have some serious concerns about this special interest earmark that will make the u.s.a. permanent conduit to international markets for one of the dirtiest fuel sources on the planet. is is an earmark for
transcanada and maybe the worst abuse in this legislation is that it exempts transcanada from all federal permitting requirements and other federal environmental laws. other u.s. companies will have to abide by-laws that we will exempt for transcanada and exempts them from paying into the oil spill liket fund which helps the government respond to il spills. this company has already had major oil spills, we will have oil spills. what we're saying when we approve this legislation are these things. one, we're going to give an earmark to a transcanada. it's ok to give an earmark, a special interest earmark, we just can't do it in the united states. number, two we're saying that this transcanada will have the ability to bypass environmental laws that americans cannot bypass. and then number three, we're saying that this company does
not have to pay one penny into the oil spill liability trust fund, which means that the people who are watching this debate tonight will pay when an oil spill occurs. and i think that is obscene. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, i think the gentleman on the other side of the aisle has the right to close. if he's ready to close, we're ready to yield back our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time? the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. wit wit -- mr. waxman: you're ready to close? mr. whitfield: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: may i ask how many minutes i have available? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has four minutes remaining. mr. whitfield: in conclusion on this important debate, i would like to, first of all, thank mr. waxman of california for the many contributions that he
has made while a member of the house of representatives. i've had the opportunity to serve with him on the energy and commerce committee for many years. he has very strong beliefs. he's committed and i just want to wish him the very best in his future endeavors. i know he won't be retiring. he'll be very active in some worthwhile cause and i just want to tell him how much we admire and respect the work that he did, although i personally didn't agree philosophically with some of it, as i'm sure you did not agree with many of mine. but do i wish you the very best, mr. waxman, as you move forward. in conclusion i would like to say, this is not a new piece of legislation. it has passed the house of representatives on eight separate occasions. and we really did not plan to bring it up in this lame duck session, except that senator reid, the leader of the senate, the democratic leader of the senate, changed his mind and
decided to bring it up on the senate side. so when we found out about that , mr. cassidy introduced this legislation which mirrors the bill on the senate side. and we're thrilled that we have an opportunity to pass this legislation. and i expect that we will pass it. i might add that it has been studied for over six years. there have been four complete environmental studies completed. the secretary of state's office on more than one occasion, two occasions, three occasions has said it would have negligentble environmental impact -- negligible environmental impact. in one case they said it would be better off to build this pipeline than not to build it because the environmental degree of moving it by pipeline would be better than the alternative, which is being
moved -- in which it is being moved today. so i think it is a win-win-win situation for america. many people have said, well, they're simply bringing this oil through the united states and then it's going to be exported. we've had many hearings. some of it will be exported. but some of it will be refined right here in the u.s. it will be 850,000 barrels of oil a day, which is about half of what we're importing from the middle east. it will make us less dependent, some labor unions support this legislation. the governor of nebraska supports this legislation. so i think it's a win-win-win for everyone. there are additional safety requirements on this pipeline that are not required on other pipelines. so i think there's going to be adequate safeguards. it's been -- we've held so many hearings on this, so i would urge the body, the house of representatives, to pass this
legislation and give us the opportunity to send it down to the white house for the president's consideration and with that i'd yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 748, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. i am opposed to the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mrs. capps of california moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 5682. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does -- mr. whitfield: i reserve a point of order against this motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is reserved. the clerk will read. the clerk: mrs. capps of california moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 5682, to the
committee on transportation and infrastructure, with instructions to report the same back to the house with the following amendment. at the end of the bill, add the following, section 2, requirement that transcanada keystone pipeline pay for any oil spill cleanup on american soil. and the approval process authorized under this act, transcanada keystone pipeline should certify to the president that diluted materials derived from the tar sands and oil sands that are transported through the keystone x.l. pipeline be treated as crude oil and for the purposes of determining contributions that fund the oil spill liability trust fund. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to offer the final and only amendment to this bill. passage of this amendment will not prevent the pass and of the underlying bill -- passage of the underlying bill. my amendment would simply be
incorporated into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted upon. mr. speaker, it's no secret that we're still primarily dependent on oil and other fossil fuels for our energy needs. this dependence does have the affect of polluting our planet, of harming public health and of threatening our national security. recent advances in clean, renewable energy technologies have demonstrated that it doesn't have to be this way. but rather than pursuing the sustainable energy future we know we need, this and the keystone x.l. pipeline double down on fossil fuels and push us further down this destructive path. no matter if you support or oppose keystone x.l., we can all agree that drilling and transporting oil has serious risks. it only takes one small crack, one small mistake to cause a major oil spill. and catastrophic, irreparable harm to the surrounding
communities. in 1969, my home district experienced one of the worst oil spills in u.s. history. i saw firsthand the devastating damage to our local economy, to human health, property and natural resources. and we've seen this happen far too many times since then in communities around the country. the deep water horizon disaster cost 11 lives, billions of dollars in economic damages and untold devastation to the delicate ecosystem of the gulf. and that very same year we saw a terrible spill in michigan. this bill was particularly noteworthy because it involved tar sanledses oil. which is the same type of oil that would flow through the keystone pipeline. tar sands is much harder to clean up than standard crude, which is one of the reasons that spill took nearly $1 billion and several years to fully clean up. mr. speaker, history has shown us that there's simply no such thing as a spill-proof well or
pipeline. accidents do happen. in fact, accidents have already happened 14 times on the existing keystone pipeline. despite numerous assurances that keystone x.l. will be safer and spill risks will be minimal, safer simply does not equate safe. and that's why we have oil spill liability trust fund, which is funded by an eight cents per barrel excise on crude oil and petroleum products. this fund ensures that the oil companies that create these messes also pay to clean them up. but transcanada is currently exefment from -- exempt from contributing to the fund for keystone because tar sands oil is not considered crude oil for the purposes of the program. if keystone x.l. is approved, the pipeline's tar sands oil will literally get a free ride through the united states. and if there's a spill, taxpayers and local communities, not those responsible, could be stuck with the cleanup bill. this makes no -- with the
cleanup bill. this makes no sense. transcanada and all tar sands oil companies should have to pay into the oil spill liability trust fund just like every other oil company. and that's why i'm offering this very straightforward amendment. my amendment would simply require transcanada's -- transcanada to certify it will pay the same per barrel fee for its tar sands oil as it does for its regular crude it. would ensure that trans-- crude. it would ensure that transcanada would pay to clean up its own mess in the event of a spill. mr. speaker, if we as a nation -- and these are our natural resources as taxpayers -- if we as a nation are going to bear 100% of the spill risk, the least we can do is to ensure that those responsible pay to clean it up. this is a commonsense idea that should have bipartisan support. so i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, to protect american taxpayers and
ensure that oil companies pay what is only their fair share and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i'd like to withdraw my point of order and claim the time in opposition to the gentlelady's motion. the speaker pro tempore: the reservation is withdrawn. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: thank you very much. i would like to remind the gentlelady that president obama through a regulation decided hat it's not crude oil for the purposes of the trust fund tax. so the problem was created by president obama and the i.r.s. we are in the process of trying to address that issue and it's under the jurisdiction of the ways and means committee and their tax reform package, that is an issue that they're looking at. but if we try to change that now, and this bill, we would be
treating transcanada differently than all other pipelines are being treated, bringing it into the united states. i would also point out that this pipeline's greater safety characteristics, it has more safety characteristics than any other pipeline built, and we would think you'd want to incentivize its use and not punish it with further taxation. so, in my opinion, while i have great respect for the gentlelady from california, this is simply a ruse to kill the bill and i would respectfully ask our members to oppose this motion to recommit, pass h.r. 5682 and, the senate has said, since senator reid has said they'll take it up in the senate, that's >> that was debate from
yesterday. we expect the house to devil back in and half an hour for final word on the legislation to authorize construction of the keystone xl pipeline. we will have live coverage on c-span when they gavel in this hour. house republicans have been meeting at the cannon house office building. a live look outside the meeting room, where a couple of reports fromhat this -- this is "the house have defeated a plant by mike rogers to restore some earmarks." the problem with the earmarks is " optics." the house defeating the and them into the gop rulebook should we will hear the comments and get those to you as we can. also, we're getting is that speaker boehner, among the changes for the 114th, is that pete sessions will continue on as the realtor in the 114th
congress -- rules chair in the 114th congress. live coverage of the house when they gavel back in at about noon eastern or so. in the meantime, tomorrow marks the second year the senate it opens up for the health exchanges and we talked about it on this morning's "washington journal." our conversation about the affordable care act continues. the second enrollment period continues tomorrow and goes through february 15. we are going to talk about some of the economic aspects of the affordable care act. here are the numbers on the screen. we want to have you as a part of this conversation. (202) 585-3880, democrats. (202) 585-3881, republicans. .ndependents, (202) 585-3882 at the university of chicago's casey mulligan, a professor in economics. joining us on our set in
washington is henry aaron of the brookings institution, and economics studies senior fellow and has covered health care for a long time. professor mulligan, i want to start with you in chicago. the white house said that here are some of the goals of the affordable care act. , put more money in family's pockets. number two, help slow the growth of health care costs. reduce long-term deficit. improve health and make workers more productive. reduce job lock and encourage mobility and entrepreneurship. finally, improve financial security in the face of illness. casey mulligan, in your view, has the affordable care act achieved those goals? you asked me in the present tense. a lot of the provisions that the white house intended to achieve
those goals have not come into play at. the cadillac tax. they intend that to help reduce the cost and that is not coming in until 2018. it is probably fairer to them, will it ever achieve those goals? there are a bunch of goals you mentioned. some of them, no, it will do the opposite. the productivity example. there are so many taxes in this law. different workers, different sectors. it is going to cause people to do business differently than they do it now. tax andl do it for subsidy reasons, not for good business reasons to make the adjustments. that is going to be a loss in productivity. be $6,000 perwill year per worker who gets insured because of the loss -- law. i give an example here in chicago. our lowly cubs changed the way
they do business with their grounds crew. not for good business reasons, but to save on taxes or penalties or whatever you want to call them. they were not able to handle 15 minutes of heavy rain and you lost half of the ballgame. that is a loss in productivity, a loss in value to the customer. those kind of things are happening all over the economy and will happen even greater amounts when the lawfully kicks in. that is a big loss. they have it backwards to say that they are enhancing productivity. one can look at the price side of what the law is doing or the benefit side. law is toive of this enable people who previously did not have access to health insurance and hence suffered needless illnesses to have better access and that will improve their productivity.
-- and thismployers is well-established among deciding hownd up much they want to pay workers overall. if they are paying more in the way of health insurance, there will be a little less wage, but there is no evidence that the overall impact on the demand for labor by employers should be materially affected. but there is a more fundamental point really. this argument that the trade-off is between efficiency and compassion has been going on for 200 years, ever since the english poorhouse, when critics complained that if homeless mothers were given shelter and food and her children were similarly supported that somehow it would induce bad behavior on the part of the lower classes. we have is a compassionate
society here and in all other developed countries struck a balance between providing support for those who need it and the kinds of incentives to which professor mulligan drew attention. there is a trade-off. i think the trade-off that the law strikes making sure that people have adequate insurance, giving them the option if they choose not to buy it, not to buy it, and pay a tax instead, that is their call. it improves the options that are available for people to be able to achieve a fair balance between their needs and the incentives of society and that it requests for economic efficiency. guest: i'm glad we agree there is a trade-off. the white house to be killed study.- due a detailed there have a positive side effect to the trade-off -- they
do not mention the trade off. at the end of the day, we made reach the right point in the trade-off, but i'm very worried that we do not discuss the cost part. ,here is a large employment tax the economic equivalent of an employment tax that is not discussed anywhere. not in the white house, not a brookings, not at rand, no one is discussing it except in my book about the economic side effects of the lot. it is a huge tax. on mica andory laura smith from long beach california. 60's.re in their mike had a district manager job. the law said, look, we have big subsidies for you. npr was celebrating the big
subsidies. what they didn't mention is that mr. smith had to get out of the job to get access to the subsidies. really a penalty. look, mr. smith, you want to make great contribution to economic activity? we are going to pull something back from you. as soon as you stop making your contribution, here are your goodies. i may agree at the end of the day that balance has been achieved, but how do we know we achieve the balance unless we discuss it? jonathan gruber never discussed the employment tax. let's have the discussion and quantify it and compare it to the benefits and use arithmetic and numbers. guest: since we are going by anecdote, let me go back to the chicago baseball team example. i sat on the committee to study the economics of baseball several years ago.
mulligan,ure mr. professor mulligan, that the owners of the chicago team could have afforded to pay their groundskeepers more. that was not an effect of the affordable care act. that was an excuse for the management to try to lower their and there was nothing in the economics of the situation that required the sacrifice of the game that he described. aaron and casey mulligan. sy's calling in from plainview, new york. caller: good morning. i have been listening to your conversation. i have several comments to make. curve isall, the cost supposedly going down, but i think that is in effect a very high deductibles.
to what iording looked up, is between $3000 and $6,000 per person. they are not really able to access health care unless it becomes catastrophic, in which case the plague would act as catastrophic insurance because you have to pay $3000 to $6,000 out-of-pocket, plus your monthly premium. it becomes prohibitive. i don't know why they call it the affordable care act. it is only affordable to the lower, middle, and lower classes. the middle and the upper classes have subsidized them. if it was so great, why didn't the government try to get out of it themselves? and then when they could not get out of it and were forced to take obamacare, they somehow finagled subsidies for themselves, even though their
incomes are well above the parameters for subsidies which end at $4000? host: we are going to leave it there. guest: let me start with the second part. the things i do when i am not here is sit on the executive board of the d.c. health exchange. basically, what the federal government employees are doing is getting an employment-based insurance plan through the d.c. health exchange. as with other companies in which the employer pays a portion of the premium, that is also applying here in the case of federal employees. there is no really any special deal and there is no separate subsidy for employees. they are simply buying health insurance, buying coverage through the d.c. health exchange. curve, therest
always has been a trade-off between paying high premiums and having low out-of-pocket expenses when you use health care or paying lower premiums and having to pay more up front, in the form of deductibles or some form of cost sharing at the time you use the services. that trade-off was not repealed by the affordable care act. and this goes back to the bush administration and the medicare expansion act have been encouraged to move in the direction of high did a double plans. whether that is a good thing is something that is quite controversial. personally, i would go for a high deductible plan myself. but not everybody has the same tastes or risks that i have and might prefer more complete coverage of they want it. now, as in the past, they can get it by paying higher
premiums. those are the gold or platinum plans under the health insurance exchange. i agree with the basic that one of the ways to bend the cost curve is to ask people to have more skin in the game and pay more when they make those visits. that is a kind of trade-off. the other way i like to look at the cost curve is not in terms of inflation rates and health are, but how many hours does family have to work to pay for the health care that is received? the growth rate in that has not fallen at all. people are making less per hour. the growth rate of their wages has not been so great. previous trend in terms of how many hours you have to work to pay for health care has continued at the same rapid pace
that it has been for a while. host: a tweet to the washington journal. guest: i'm not sure what aspect of sustaining. yes, we could sustain. we can have a society with less free stuff rather than more. it is sustainable. maybe it is not desirable and it has winners and losers, but you could do it and our economy would be bigger now and more people would be working. work would be creating more value in the marketplace if we had stayed with the old system. but it has its costs. host: susan is calling in from the suburbs and virginia. -- in virginia. caller: good morning. this is an interesting conversation and i had to get up
and call. i was on thement, internet for two or three days and it kept crashing. plan, iup buying a needed a really good plan because i am a prior heart patient. the cost now with having an individual plan in northern virginia because i had to use the federal exchange is over $1000 per month. i cannot, for the life of me, understand why we could not get to buy into better drug costs , which i think big pharma has a hand in here. and then the insurance industry is giving me the option of one ppo and everything else was hmo. hmo, in the past, i had such a horrible experience because of
my heart, they botched it, unfortunately. i don't know at this point what i am going to do. i see the cost going up and up. host: what would you like to see done? what the would like gentleman said here. financial transparency. you have got to get into these and let the consumer and the reporters look at all the details. without the details, you cannot make a good decision. guest: let me first point out that under the prior system, it was sustainable. the caller would have faced medical underwriting from insurance companies and premiums that likely were even higher than those she now finds so distressing. and very possibly, she would have been denied coverage altogether or, if granted
coverage, she could have been given some services and then the insurance company could have elected to cancel coverage altogether. federalw, through the exchanges and state exchanges, there is a menu of four grade levels of plans, ranging from pretty comprehensive coverage and that carries i premiums. , you can have plans that have high detectable's and be a few thousand dollars per year and higher charges when you use services, until you have paid a certain amount out-of-pocket. at that point, everything is covered under all the plans. the premiums are much lower for that kind of plan. that is a trade-off. that is a fact of life because there is a simple iron law. the insurance companies who are writing your coverage have to collect enough money overall to stay in business. that means transferring funds
tom those who are healthy those who are sick. mostu are paying everything in the way of health care, they are going to charge higher premiums. host: robert is calling in from illinois. caller: yes sir. i have a few comments. hard and soft manipulation. tonsparent in regards getting elected by saying we will provide you health care to the masses. whenever you engage in that kind of behavior, people love free stuff and free health care. everything is not too free. is ifuth of the matter
insurance companies were not so greedy and regard to pre-existing conditions, they would never have been able to engage in getting elected on the platform. everybody should be transparent in regard to corporations and ties to big form a cynical companies in order to get elected. the only beneficiary to the aca is the pharmaceutical companies. in chicago, illinois, we have a bunch of them. the fact that everybody is required to pay for health care is ok, but when it gets to the point when the working poor and the middle class are paying for andybody and the rich again the pharmaceutical companies are making billions and billions of dollars. host: casey mulligan, university of chicago. callersoth the mentioned that they want to see
some transparency and see the costs and benefits laid out. i agree with that. i am pessimistic. the new york times does not mention the tax that a pointed out. it is the single biggest tax. the don't mention it. why not question it -- why not? maybe they think that the law is a good law and it is not a good idea to shine a light on its costs because others who are not as smart will exaggerate those costs. i'm pessimistic that we will see it. get very little coverage. i really appreciate being invited today. i think that is a permanent state of affairs. casey mulligan is the
author of the book "side effects." he did a study for the mercator's center on the affordable care act and the economics of part-time work. henry aaron has been with the brookings institution since 1968. how many of those years have you studied health care? 1980, afterrted in a stint in government were i was given a job because what i knew about welfare and social security. in the course of my two years in government service, i realized that health care policy was the emerging issue and the most important domestic, social policy issue that the nation would be facing and i think events have proven that inside correct. .ost: paul is an arkansas is that arkansas or alaska? caller: you always get it mixed up. ak is alaska.
host: we are even. [laughter] caller: i asked her economics , couldor -- mr. mulligan you define fascism? my follow-up with liberty. here is the issue. medicare.m on -- 68 years old, i'm on medicare. everyone i think a unique health care and we are going to force you to take health care. do you want it or not? president obama has said, i've got the pen. fascism is a situation where everybody, whoever is in power, whatever they say goes as law. that is based on roman law. our government, we based our
government on common-law, which is a bicameral system and where the people have a say in the situation. host: we appreciate that. you have given us a little bit of that philosophy and titus into the affordable care act. areer: why so many people rejecting the affordable care act is that we are being forced without any say, we are being forced to buy this policy. host: let's begin with casey mulligan. i'm not an expert on politics. i know that plays in. i wish i had more expertise. i would like to see the political process be more competitive. we have too many districts that are either all republican are all democrat and they virtually have nothing to choose from. is alack of competition
problem. i'm not sure how it feeds into health care, but i sure it does. ly agree complete with professor mulligan about the lack of competitive districts. we have an elected congress that can be voted out of office. as many democratic incumbents recently discovered. if you don't like the law, elect people to change it. that is called democracy, not fascism. host: leonard in ohio. caller: good morning. reagan saidident that insurance and everything would go down. now, we have the affordable care say is ah some people give me from the government. i would like to ask your guests, what is the difference between a person receiving welfare and the
whole state receiving welfare? virginia,inas, florida, georgia, alabama, mississippi, arkansas, texas or welfare states. could you explain to me what is a welfare state? host: henry aaron? can answernot sure i that question directly. there is something about all of the states that's a gentleman mentioned. they have elected to make a very bad deal for the citizens of their own states. support fromused the rest of the united states for expanding health care for poor residents of their own state. that strikes me as a poor decision. in the case of virginia, where i looked up the numbers, we are looking at a state that is turning done $2 billion per year in steady money.
the enrollments have leveled off. funds would come from other states to support local residents. how thet clear to me legislature in the state of electoraten face the and say, we are turning done money and other states to help us support your neighbors. the law does have built into it at the state level some perverse incentives. they are inviting individual states to take out of the federal treasury. america pays for that. surprisingly, a number of states have declined to take a bite out of the federal treasury. the rest of america ought to thank them, not criticize them. in charleston, south carolina. caller: very interesting show.
i have a short statement and one question. real easyeasy -- is for people on obamacare to make the statement that they love it, they like it, they like everything about it. that is because most of them are not paying for it. now you get to the people who are paying the bill. i am 67. i have worked on my life, paid my taxes. my question is if obama's amnesty plan goes through and we add 4-6,000,000 more people to our country, i would think that the majority of those people would not have money to pay for the affordable care act and they too will get a subsidy and the people that is paying the bills, the subsidies, how can you expect the 50% of people in this country paying the bills and the
other 50% are sitting on their behind? something is getting to a boiling point. the country is already bankrupt, they just don't put it in words. this is causing a horrific rift between two sections of people. everybody is that their throats and we have mr. obama to thank for it. i understand the frustration, but with all do respect, i think you have things backwards. people who are here without documentation are receiving free care. ,hen they go into a hospital the hospital is legally required to provide care for them. the kind of measures that are reported to be under consideration by the administration would enable those people to take regular
employment and earn more than they are now able to do because they are not allowed effectively into many kinds of jobs. i think the measures that are now under consideration would actually help deal with the problem which troubles you, the last caller. i do understand the frustration. you don't like to have freeloaders in the country. but i think the measures that the administration is considering would help ameliorate and reduce the magnitude of the problem that troubles you. host: william is in virginia. caller: i would like to ask the guys as they have any opinion on insurance companies. and they doinesses it by actuarial analysis. is there any way, any better way than what we have going on now
where you could bend a business with a systemnce like they have in canada or something where everything is supposedly free? some thoughts on that. thank you. the caller is right. part of the insurance business is actuarial analysis. another big part of the insurance business is regulation. the regulations are not new. they are increasing over time. that hurts the value that customers get out of their insurance. of those employees have to be devoted to understanding regulation, leveraging regulation to their advantage, lobbying. i would like to see a lot less regulated insurance industry, at least the part of the insurance industry that would be
unregulated and people could deal with. that would save a lot of resources. something like 35% of insurance is overhead. costs thate types of every insurance plan owner has to pay for. they are really not necessary as a matter of technology. know: the collar wanted to if there are alternative ways to pay for health benefits and pointed to the example in canada. there certainly are. the united states has one particular kind of arrangement under which private insurance companies provide most of the coverage. casey mulligan and i disagree about whether the insurance industry is desirable or essential for the industry to function reasonably well. there is no question that we could, if we wished, have a different kind of system. the canadians as do, a system organized by the state, but officially under a
national law that requires a degree of uniformity. it pays through most of health care through taxation and provides services at lower price , at least hospital services, at the time the people made them. a lot of other countries do that .oo these systems have advantages and disadvantages. there is one thing in common across the world. unless something really horrendous changes, we evolve, we change gradually. that is why for all its flaws and complexities, the affordable care act actually builds on the system that we had. it is an incremental change. it did not sweep out the whole health care system and replace it with a national health service as in great britain. it did not sweep away employment-based coverage and , as everybody a voucher senator mccain suggested during his presidential campaign.
it builds on our system, which happens to be the most complicated in the world. surprise, the reform is complicated. it annoys a lot of people, it annoys me. i think there are things that can be done better. but if we were not going to have a revolution in the health-care system, we had to build on what was there before. it is a very complicated system. the various disturbances that people are expressing frustrations are a product of that decision. sense that theny nation is disposed for revolutionary change, either toward vouchers or toward a national tax finance system. was barely tolerated politically, the reform that we had. we are going to try to make it work. i think it will work eventually. it will take time, money, patients, and i think we will be better off for it, but it is not going to be a smooth, bump list trip. mpless trip.
host: casey mulligan, what would you recommend? guest: i would recommend a tax credit for people who don't get health insurance through their job. that would build on the old system, which had texted actions for people who did get it through the job. i would roll back some of the regulations in the insurance industry, such as competing across state lines. it is hard to know exactly what that would achieve, but i think the market surprises you. i would do that. something needs to be done about pre-existing conditions. you don't need to have a huge redistribution to deal with produced or brooding -- pre-existing conditions. i think that is one of the big things that came up in this law. jim is in hamilton,
montana. caller: yes, good morning. i was calling in to say the same thing. we get billions and billions and billions of dollars away. why can't it be free? pharmaceutical bills 32 -- $.32 to $.87 of powder per pill. they are making $10 or $20 of pill. that is beyond greed. care, weup the health are going to have more fairness for the corporations and what they are charging their customers. but it should be free for everybody. host: casey mulligan. free? free stuff is a path to a
real small economy. people create value so they can earn profit or a wager what have you. that goes for the workers. they work so they can get health care and schooling and vacations. the pharmaceutical companies as well. they need to make money on their successful drugs because they have a great number of drugs that are not successful and they still have to pay the scientist 's and pay for the fda trials and so on. they need to earn a pro clerk w. the clerk: h.r. 5682 a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. the speaker pro tempore: when oceedings were post-poped on november 13, 2014, all time for debaret had expired. >> mr. speaker, i ask for the
yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion offered by the gentlelady from california, mrs. capps. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion -- mrs. capps: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. . pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any vote on passage of the measure. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 192, the nays are 224. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage a of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested.
all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer feather i ask unanimous don sent for the purpose -- unanimous consent to address the house for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader of the schedule. i want to congratulate the gentleman for his re-election and the expansion of his majority. not something i was seeking but it is the reality, and i say to
him -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is right. he house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. i know that all of us look forward to moving forward and hopefully having a degree of cooperation that will respond to what clearly the american people want and that is the two sides to be working together to make their country better and more successful. and so i want to congratulate the majority leader. at this point in time, i yield to the majority leader for the purposes of telling us what the schedule if is for the week to ome.
mr. mccarthy: on monday the house will meet at noon and 2:00 p.m. for legislate i have business. on tuesday and wednesday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and 12:00 for legislative business. on thursday, the house will meet 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes are expected before 3:00 p.m. no votes are expected in the house on friday. a complete list of bills that will be considered will be released today. the house will consider three bills to alleviate burdens on small businesses, h.r. 1422, the --.a. science advisory board mr. hoyer: the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized.
mr. mccarthy: the first h.r. 1422, the e.p.a. science advisory board reforming at, sponsored by representative chris stewart, would establish board member qualifications. the second, h.r. 4012, the by et science reform act, representative david schweikert, would prevent them finalizing a regulation unless the data is made public. and another by steve scalise will bring much-needed transparency to the permitting process. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the majority leader for that information and we will expect to be considering those piece of legislation. the majority leader, excuse me, has not mentioned, of course, four bill which is i know the majority leader is focused on that are very important and that must be passed prior to -- let
me back up. are we still, mr. majority are we still expecting to end this session of the congress on the 11th of december? mr. mccarthy: if the gentleman yields. yes, it is our intention, and i do understand that government is only funded until the 11th. it's our intention to work -- continue to work with you and all members and have that finished by december 11 and be out. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that observation. let me say, mr. majority leader, i know there's been discussion on your side and my side of the aisle, i know mrs. lowey is working with mr. rogers to affect an omnibus appropriation bill, as we all know not a single appropriation bill has been adopted. we're operating under a continuing resolution. that's not giving the stability that we need to give to the agencies to know what resources
they have to accomplish the objectives we expect. can the gentleman tell me whether or not his expectation is we will proceed with an omnibus out of the ppropriations committee before december 11? and it's not on the schedule for next week, my presumption would be therefore it would be on the schedule for the first week in december when we get back, so that we can send it to the senate to be adopted. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the gentleman is right. we did pass seven of the 12 -- 11 out of the 12 out of committee. unfortunately the senate had passed none. and the best way for this house and this country to work is through regular order. and we hope to be able to get back that with the new senate. the gentleman is right, it is not scheduled for next week. no decisions are made but there's a possibility that we could end an omnibus in
december. mr. hoyer: and is it the expectation of the majority leader that we would be considering an omnibus so that we would do the 12 appropriation bills in a single bill? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: no decisions are made on the direction that we'll go. the gentleman knows that we were down at the white house just last week meeting with the president. i do believe the best way forward is that we would all work together and move this country in the right direction. so no decisions are made on the direction that we go. mr. hoyer: all right. , we ld say on our side agree with mr. rogers and senator mcconnell who did indicate early on that an omnibus would be the preferable alternative. the problem is the gentleman well knows with the c.r., it gives a very limited ability of agencies, particularly department of defense, at a
critical time to plan as they would like. general dempsey and others have mentioned that. so i'm hopeful that we'll be able to work together to accomplish that objective. the other -- there were three others. there's no mention of a tax extenders bill. as the gentleman knows, the senate is addressing that. does the gentleman have any idea, again given the fact that we have essentially three weeks left to go and a few days and cooperation's going to be essential if we get our work done, on where we're going on tax extenders? i'll yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i had just met with our chairman of ways and means and he's been working in the other house and nothing has been finalized yet. as you know, we had passed many of those bills permanently out of this house. negotiations are still going on with the senate. but it's our intention to have that done before the end of the
year as well. mr. hoyer: given that intention , can the majority leader tell us whether or not there is an inclination -- the senate, as you know had, a different approach. they did a limited extension, not a permanent extension. and they dealt with all of the extenders. and they had a two-year extension, as you know. whether or not we are looking at doing something temporarily while we prepare for what i think both sides think are necessary, and that is a major tax reform bill at some point in time in the spring or the summer, can the gentleman tell me whether there is that component of the consideration of the tax extenders legislation? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman again. as the gentleman stated, yes, coming out of the house we made it permanent because that gives much greater stability to the
country. and that's still part of the negotiation. the senate has a different idea than inside the house. none of that has been finalized yet. when the negotiation gets finalized, that will give us the answer. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman and urge him that we get to agreement pretty soon because if we're going to give some certainty to the business community, as well as individuals, we need to act on that and we have some -- approximately maybe -- maybe 10 days, if we count three days for each one of the weeks at that that's remaining, 10 days in order to accomplish that through the house and the senate. so it's necessary, i suggest respectfully to the majority leader, we come to agreement on that fairly soon. if we're going to have the ability to pass and send to the president that legislation. hirdly, the third of the items
, the terrorism risk insurance act, which mr. hensarling just wrote an op ed about. i know the committee has acted or is contemplating action on that. can the gentleman tell me whether or not -- i know there has been some discussion on including it in the omnibus, i don't know whether that's rumor or fact that it's being considered, but account the gentleman tell me where we are on the terrorism risk insurance? as the gentleman knows, it passed 93-4 in the united states senate. so it was not a partisan bill in the senate, overwhelming support for it. and i would hope that we could move it through the house in a similar bipartisan overwhelming fashion. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i had just met with our chairman and he's scheduled to meet with the senate on the other side of the aisle early next week. the speaker and i have both put
a statement out that we know the timeline of this, if they can't come to agreement, we are open to doing a one-year extension, making sure that it doesn't have any problems. but we would like to see a resolution of this with a negotiation between both sides. mr. hoyer: the senate bill of course is seven years as the gentleman knows. that gives a certain degree of certainty to the lenders and borrowers and those who do business with both lenders and borrowers and in the construction industry. i'm hopeful we could come to an agreement that is longer term so we could give more confidence. i think that would be in the best interest, and very frankly i think would enjoy bipartisan significant support in this house, mr. majority leader. stly, the national defense act, authorization bill, which has passed this house, as you
know, is pending in the senate. does the gentleman have any knowledge as to where that stands now and what possibilities there are to assure its adoption prior to the 11th of december? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and the gentleman is correct, we have passed it in the house. we have been working with the senate. think very strongly that we will get this done before september 11. i don't have a set date but -- december 11. i don't have a set date but i believe this is a top priority on both sides of the aisle. we need movement on the senate and we'll be done with it. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. given that expectation of moving on it, does the gentleman expect or know whether or not we will deal with the train and equip authorization within the framework of the national defense authorization act, or perhaps the omnibus or some other piece of legislation? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and you were with us at the white house
when the president laid out the supplemental. appropriations committee is going through all the funding there. no decisions have been made yet. where that would move forward. but it's our intention to be able to have that question answered and be able to have the resources needed to do the job. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a joint resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: house joint resolution 129, joint resolution appointing the day for the convening of the first session of the 114th congress. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the joint resolution. without objection, the joint resolution is engrossed, read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 753, resolution providing for the printing of a revised edition of the rules and manual of the house of representatives for the 114th congress. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the resolution? without objection, the resolution is agreed to. and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday, november 17, 2014, when it shall convene at noon 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 pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fitzpatrick: mr. speaker, the eagle scout award, the highest honor in the boy scouts of america, is widely recognized as a great accomplishment in the life of a young man. only a small percentage, about two or three -- 2% or 3% of all young men who join and participate in the programs of boy scouts are able to achieve it. this weekend in my district, james white will become our nation's newest eagle. and he's the third son of dave and ann white of bucks county, pennsylvania, to have been awarded scouting's highest honor. as an eagle, james has lived up to the principles of the scout oath and law and has demonstrated the type of citizenship and leadership that i believe is so vital to the future of our nation. when he becomes an eagle scout, james will be standing with world war ii combat veteran george guida who james accompanied on an honor flight
of veterans here in the capital two years ago. they became friends, they stayed in touch, they provided inspiration to each other. because i can't be with the white family this weekend, i wanted the record to reflect my congratulations, my hope that james' future will be filled with many more significant and meaningful achievements and my belief and reflection that we need more young men like eagle scout james white. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, today marks the closing of the comment period on the rule for the waters of the united states, under the clean water act, that has been proposed by the federal environmental protection agency and the u.s. army corps of engineers. since comment period opened, which was april 24 of this year, landowners, states, counties and groups representing a diverse range of both economic and environmental
stakeholders from across the country have filed more than a quarter million comments on a rule that threatens both our comment comme and the ability of states to effectively manage water quality. through a strong state-federal regulatory partnership that provides adequate flexibility to address water quality while accounting for local and regional variations of conditions, pennsylvania's demonstrated a successful track record of improving and protecting the ecological health of its waters. unfortunately this new federal policy poses a direct threat to the long standing federalist approach empowered within the clean water act. today members of the pennsylvania congressional delegation will join the thousands of other concerned citizens in opposing this flawed policy. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
mr. poe: mr. speaker, the federal food police now control what american children are permitted to eat in public schools. the first lady has said, we just can't leave it up to the parents. several things are wrong about this totalitarian control of children. kids say the portions are so small or the food is so disliked they must smuggle food from home or just go hungry. this leads to the federal government food being wasted and thrown away at the end of the day. what's next? are the federal food bureaucrats going to force-feed school children with government food? it should not be the role of washington and the federal government to control what children eat. that is the responsibility of parents. americans are not stupid. and cannot leave it up to the almighty feds to determine what is best for our kids. the federal government should not raise our children. because the federal government is not the parent of my kid or my grandkid, whether washington likes it or not. and that's just the way it is.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. jones of north carolina for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request s granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. thank you, mr.
speaker. this is an important day for a number of reasons. it is an important day in that we passed the cassidy bill here in the house that will open the -- to the x.l. pipe keystone pipeline being built. since this administration has dalied so, the chinese have entered the picture and are desirous of having a pipeline going to the west coast of canada so that apparently when this administration does finally get around to deciding what's best for americans nstead of what is best for his political situation, then we
will have to compete with the chinese who will be seeking the oil to go in their pipeline as opposed to the united states getting it to come through our pipeline. but we understand that our friend, ms. landrieu, senator landrieu will have a bill in her name come to the senate floor for a vote. i'm really proud bill cassidy is a friend. i'm proud that we had a chance to vote on the bill cassidy bill. i'm proud that it passed, and i think it's such a shame that mary landrieu will not be able to likely get her colleagues to vote for the keystone pipeline and pass it, as bill cassidy has been able to do here in the house. make no mistake, since i live in east texas and the pipeline will come through part of my district and come across
private land, nobody who has private land wants a pipeline coming across their land. anybody that's ever had one knows it's no fun. you don't like having an easement across for a pipeline like that. so it will require great diligence to make sure that it's properly maintained and that damage is avoided and if damage occurs, then i'll certainly fight for our landowners to make sure they're properly addressed and taken care of and compensated. so that's one thing today. but it really pails in comparison, mr. speaker -- pales in comparison, mr. speaker, what happened 100 years ago today. recent years after this administration blindly supported what it called and
others in north africa and the middle east called an arab spring, we've come to find out what many of us suspected, even at the time and said was likely to mean more of the devastating winter than an arab spring. it is seen the fall of government in libya. it has seen the chaos arise in many parts of libya. it has seen terrorists take control of parts of libya. it has seen the fall of the government in algeria, tunisia and the takeover by radical islam. and i was amazed at the ignorance of many in the mainstream media when i said back at the time that what radical islamists, what the
muslim brotherhood was seeking to re-create was the beginning of the ottoman empire and that in its ignorance our executive branch, this administration here in the u.s. actually helped jump-start what the muslim brothers are hoping will be the new ottoman empire. i was surprised how many reporters asked, what did i mean by ottoman empire. they had not had the kind of education i was fortunate to have in public schools in east texas and public school in the way of university of texas a&m and then law school at baylor, so they didn't know what the ottoman empire was. hopefully they did some research. any of us did not realize that
the date 9/11, when the worst that on america occurred it also marked the anniversary that the t defeat islamic caliphate ever suffered in history. that was the devastating defeat o the caliphate, the radical islamic caliphate had made it all the way to vienna, laid 9/11/upon vienna and on 1868, amazingly that was the date that osama bin laden --
and the master minde, khalid sheikh mohammed, currently in guantanamo, hopefully will stay there until his death, that's the date they chose to inflict the worst attack in american history. to many people, dates mean things. my anniversary means a lot. i've never forgotten one. our birth-days mean a lot to most westerners -- birthdays mean a lot to most westerners. some try to forget them, but major dates in caliphate history mean a great deal to radical islamists. there was an article today ritten by dr. sebastian gorca, and i with a like to read this in for the record. he does a good job of incaps
lating an issue -- incapsulating an issue. he said 100 years ago today the ast caliph orem peror of islam declared the last jihad against the infidel and today for the first time ever the national cathedral in the nation's capital will host muslim prayers. most americans will have no idea that as part of world war i the then-caliph of the ottoman empire declared a holy war against infidels as was his right within shahrya law and islamic theology. you can read the full fatwa. in that fatwa there actually was a typo in the original. it was provided on this day in
1914, but they had a typo saying it was 1915. the article says that that statement by the last sitting head of what was the thee krattic empire -- thocratiy empire of islam, it was the religiously fueled genocide against christian armenians and the syrians. and that is what is pictured. it actually represents a of graph that was taken young armenian christian girls who were kidnapped, stripped crucified d and then on crosses as far as the eye could see.
this article points out the episcopal church leaders who agreed to host muslim prayers inside the washington cathedral probably have no idea what ppened a century ago in asia minor or there even was a caliph in office at the beginning of the 20th century. however, we can rest assured that the co-organizers do. for they include the council on islamic relations, care, the islamic society of north america, the muslim public affairs council and the all-dulles area muslims society, or adams, center. both care and isna will be fully aware of the significance of november 14, seeing as both organizations were declared by unindicted to be
co-conspirators of hamas, the muslim brotherhood terror group in the largest terrorist financing trial in u.s. history. those muslims who have a supremacist understanding of their religion, such as members of al qaeda and the muslim brotherhood, which was recently declared an illegal terrorist organization in the country where it was founded, egypt, have a special regard for historic dates and anniversaries. the article goes on, it is of course no accident that the 9/11 attacks, the world -- the worst terror attacks in world history, occurred exactly to the day in 1683 when the islamic ottoman forces were defeated outside the city walls of vienna, the deepest the
islamic caliphate forces made it in to the hear of the christian west. there is nothing inherently wrong with interfaith initiatives as long as they start from the same place. a mutual respect for the belief system of the other and their inherent dignity as humans created by god. when one party acts in bad faith based upon its ideological commitment to see other faiths destroyed or subjected, then the event runs the risk of becoming a propaganda coup for the extremists and their followers. the fact that this event is occurring just as ancient christian communities are being destroyed in the middle east and, quote, nonbelievers, unquote, are being actually
crucified by isis jihadists makes it all the more egregious. we know that the episcopal church is in trouble with more conservative believers leaving in great numbers and the remaining adherence not exactly outdoing their catholic cousins in terms of reproducing the next generation of believers. the author goes on to say, but i doubt they also understand the finer points of jihadist doctrine, one of which is that if a place of worship is used by muslims for their prayers, that territory subsequently al-islam, of dar sacred muslim land, forever. that author was sebastian gorca, ph.d., and he is the major general matthew c. horner
distinguished chair of military theory at the marine corps university and national security of foreign affairs editor at brightbart.com. so mr. speaker, it is an important day, and since the prosecution referred to in this article was actually the holy land foundation trial, criminal trial in united states federal district court in dallas, texas , and since i have done a great deal of reading and looking into the issues involved in that case, i'm aware of the massive number of counts of onviction and also have read the pleadings. some of the pleadings in the case in which the islamic society of north america and
the council on american islam relations, care and isna, were named as co-conspirators in that prosecution, that they were contributors and part of funding terrorism. they were not named as indicted co-conspirators, bethey were named as co-conspirators. and care and isna were among parties that filed pleadings in federal district court demanding that their names be eliminated from the pleadings. . and yet after the federal judge in dallas reviewed all of the information, the evidence before him, he declared that actually there was plenty of evidence to support the fact that care and isna, that have such cozy relations with this administration now, that those two entities are among those
who are -- plenty of evidence to support that they are supplying, ors in financing terrorism. well, that conviction occurred in late 2008, or those convictions. and from some who have been volved in that effort, their understanding was that if the bush administration justice department, after years of investigation and effort at prosecution, if they got convictions, then the intention was to come back and, especially since the courts had said there's plenty of evidence to support that these named co-conspirators were co-conspirators, then they would come back and actually , ict them, prosecute them
and those parties were not satisfied, though, with the judgment of the dallas federal court, so they appealed the ruling that there was plenty of evidence to support care and isna being co-conspirators and the imam that is their part of the prayer effort at the national cathedral today, that they wanted their names eliminated, the federal judge in dallas would not do that, so they appealed to the court of appeals, the fifth circuit court of appeals. and after the fifth circuit court of appeals reviewed the record, all the evidence, the information, then they stated even more plainly and directly than the federal district court did that, yes, there really was plenty of evidence to support that they were co-conspirators and that the names should not be struck, they should not be kept private, and the thinking was that, gee, you know, any
administration of courselands once a federal district court -- of course will understand once a federal district court and a court of appeals finds there's plenty of evidence to support that care and isna are co-conspirators in helping terrorism around the world, that surely they would not end up being cozy with any american administration. that would be the common sense, you would think. there's plenty of common sense back where i come from. but you get to washington and it's not common sense, it's just sense. and it is rather a shame that organizations who were said by federal court system to have plenty of evidence to show that ey are co-conspirators and
radical islamic effort at terrorism, that they would have such an open ear at the white house. in recent years, there was a two-day seminar that was going to take place out at langley. and because -- i know one of the instructors very well, he was -- he's made a career out of studying radical islam, he used to provide briefings, do research, provide advice to the joint chiefs of staff of our military about radical islam, well, he was one of them. well that rather upset what the federal courts have said, evidence indicates, were front groups for the muslim brotherhood, were suppliers, helpers in terrorism. they got upset that he was going to be out there and be part of teaching this seminar. so they burned up the phone
line to the white house, the white house canceled the seminar and it was care that had an ongoing partnership they developed with the united states federal bureau of investigation. and i was surprised it took so long after the f.b.i. had spent a couple of decades investigating what ultimately we understood was the muslim brotherhood, it was surprising that with federal courts saying there's plenty of evidence to as that they're complicit supplying terrorism, funding, helping with terrorism, i was surprised that the f.b.i. decided, with all that evidence , that they ended up turning around and making care their partner. so i was surprised that the letter took so long from the f.b.i. eventually to the leader
of care saying that in view of evidence in essence there in the hoelandland foundation trial, we he need to -- holyland foundation trial, we need to spend our partnership and the out-- suspend our partnership and the outreach program that the f.b.i. had with them. when i was questioning the immediate previous director of the f.b.i., director muller, about the tsarnaevs and the lack of investigation into their background, even after the russians warned this . ministration twice the first time, and apparently the russians were surprised we didn't do anything with the knowledge they had provided, that tsarnaev had been radicalized and would likely kill people here, they warned a second time. and had to be totally shocked. the best i understand,
basically the investigation included talking to tsarnaev himself and to his mom, there may have been some other peripheral things. but as i question the director of the f.b.i., you guys didn't even go out to their mosque to ask questions, to help you determine whether tsarnaev had been radicalized. and in essence he ended up saying, we did go to the mosque , when he gave the answer i didn't hear the little add-on he gave, until my staff replayed it, but the little add-on he gave after we did go out to the mosque, those mosques, he added, in our outreach program. so just as i suspected, the f.b.i. didn't go out and investigate. chele bachmann, lynn westmoreland reviewed some
materials. trent franks looked at some of the materials. but we were concerned because care, this named co-conspirator in supplying and helping terrorism as a front group for the muslim brotherhood, we were surprised that care had such powerful in-roads into the f.b.i., enough to the point that they could demand to have the training materials for the b.i. reviewed and had them as ed of things that they apparently a front group for the muslim brotherhood found offensive. they as named co-conspirators in funding terrorism, they were offended. so, massive number of pages that radical islamists might find offensive that people who
want to kill americans might be offended by were purnled from our training materials -- purged from our training materials. state department, apparently purged materials. intelligence community purged materials. and as one intelligence officer told me, we have blinded ourselves of the ability to see our enemy. breaks my aker, it eart, grieves me deeply when innocent muslims are maltreated, killed, tortured. it is a grievous violation of human rights. but in the same way, the things that have done and are growing and spreading in numbers never before seen in human history of
christians being persecuted ound the world, as america basically remains silent. but today being the 100th nniversary of the kay live's public fatwa demanding murder illing of christians in 1914 y the last islamic caliphate -- caliph, also is the first day in our history when the national cathedral run by the presbyterian church conceded to the name co-conspirators in funding terrorism's demands to have prayers today on this 0th anniversary of the fatwa
at caused the death of countless christians, especially armenian christians, as depicted in this blown-up offense from newspaper, as depicted in this drawing that we have blurred, depicting what was actually seen along the road as massive numbers of young christian girls were raped and crucified. we don't want a holy war. no christian should ever go to some kind of holy war. but for heaven's sake, when there is an international group that moderate muslim leaders in the middle east have said to me , the muslim brotherhood is your enemy, they've been behind every attack that's occurred
onto america and americans, they've been behind the killing of americans all over the middle east, in the world, why do you keep helping the muslim brotherhood? when the largest uprising in the history of the world occurred over a year ago in , pt when moderate muslims christians, even the coptic christian pope, secularists, over 30 million came to the streets of egypt and said, we don't want radical islam it was ing our country, a day of historic proportions never been a crowd the size that gathered even when 20 million came out or when the estimated 33 million came out. they demanded the same thing.
it was not a military coup as cnn and this administration tried to paint. it was the largest uprising in the history of the world. in egypt. and the egyptians, instead of being called stupid, foolish by this administration and some media, they should have been congratulated. we should have rushed to their assistance and instead this administration said, unless you put the muslim brotherhood morsi back in power, then we're not going to help you. the apache helicopters that were coming, that you used to keep the suez canal open, that you use to fight terrorism in the sinai, that helps israel, we're not going to send them. you're not going to be able to keep the suez canal and the sinai terrorism down until you
put back the muslim brother in charge. many in the media made a big deal about the christian churches being burned and about jews and christians being persecuted, tortured and killed. and for some unbelievable reason, tried to blame it on those who ousted the muslim brothers and anybody that will do any monday come of research in e-- modicum of research in egypt will understand that it was the muslim brothers that burned the churches that killed christians and jews there. it was not the government, it was not the military. the military under general al-sisi was doing everything they could to stop it. i talked to a former c.i.a. operative in the middle east last year who said he had morsi, o a guy who said
the president morsi, had tried to contract through him to have general al-sisi murdered. i asked our embassy personnel if they had heard of anything like that, they said they had not. and our meeting with general al-sisi, i asked him directly, did you have evidence when you arrested president morsi that he was trying to hire someone to kill you, he beat around the bush twice and ultimately answered yes, we did. and yet we even had republicans go back to cairo and said, put back the muslim brothers. and i met the brilliant gentlemen, muslim, seemed to be a very fine man that was put in
charge of the committee to draft a new constitution because the constitution the united states helped and this administration helped egypt to get that led to the muslim brotherhood control of the country had no provision for impeachment. so as muslim brother president morsi began to usurp power, kind of in the same vain as noriega and other dictators who get elected and then start grabbing power, he was doing it in egypt. there was no provision for impeachment. there was nothing they could do except what they did, go to the street in the tens of millions, demand his removal and in the largest uprising cause the removal of an unsfunally acting president. -- unconstitutionally acting president. and he was removed, thank
goodness. i was thrilled earlier this year -- i think it was over 90% f the egyptian voters voted to ratify the new constitution for egypt. i really wished that all of the american media could have grasped the significance of what happened. that constitution actually included provisions that required the egyptian government, under the constitution, to rebuild and replace the churches or sin gogs that had been -- synagogues that had been damaged or destroyed by the muslim brrdhood. they felt so badly for what -- muslim brotherhood. they felt so badly for what the muslim brotherhood had done to the christian and jews, they put it in their constitution that they had to be repaired and replaced.
that should have been a big day for freedom, and most of the american media missed it in entirely. well, they're also missing today, and as the left often wants to do, maybe they want to vilify me but you can't change -- you can try to rewrite history but you can't change what has happened in the past. what happened 100 years ago day, november 14, that the national cathedral, run by the presbyterian church, has allowed muslim prayers by name co-conspirators in the errorist funding trial to come have -- lead prayers in this christian cathedral.
i thank god that the massive majority of muslims, including some of my muslim friends in the northern alliance in afghanistan, they don't want radical islamists controlling anything. they don't want to be at war with americans. they don't want to kill americans. thank god for that. but it is sheer lunacy not to recognize how important anniversaries are to radical islamists, to the muslim brotherhood, to those who would kill and persecute and wipe out jews and as they say, wipe the great satan america off the map and the little satan israel off the map. it is lunacy not to recognize
the way these radical islamists feel. we can live at peace with moderate muslims. visited nigeria not long ago , 23 rn with the africans mothers who had had their daughters kidnaped, brutalized every -- can i see napped, brutalized every day, boko haram, radical control, it was a beautiful thing,ify jeer yarks until the radicals -- nigeria, until the radicals got involved, had muslims and christians living peacefully together. met a devout christian who had in his wedding party one of his
best friends in the world who was a muslim, it's a thing of beauty to see people with different backgrounds and beliefs living at peace together. but until the american media, until the majority of americans realize there really are radical islamists that think the fatwa that was declared by e last islamic caliph of the ottoman empire 100 years ago today was a great thing, then this country remains at great risk. it's bad enough that we have enemies publicly saying they want to wipe us off the map, destroy our freedom of worship, free speech, the freedoms we hold dear and love, but to be
blind that they want to destroy negligence, reckless indifference that can cost a country's freedom. is a big ker, today day, and i hope americans will wake up and understand the muslim brotherhood is not our friend. they want us all to be living, if we live at all, as muslims or to pay the fine that acknowledges that we are subjew iting ourselves -- subjugating ourselves to radical islam. we got to wake up. this country is at risk, and, mr. speaker, with prayerful
of young the masses christians who were kidnapped, raped, crucified as a result of that fatwa issued 100 years ago today, i hope that we will not , that we don't allow this movement to grow as it's grown and grown. some say a good way to avoid destructive forces overtaking civilized society is to watch israel, that israel could be minors t as the world's canary. as miners used to take canaries
in the mind shaft, they knew they were more sensitive to poison gas so if they saw a canary getting into trouble, falling, then they knew they got to get out of the mind because it was very, very dangerous. when we see israel being attacked, our best friend in the middle east being attacked, anti-semitism, hatred for jews, hatred for israelis growing in europe of all places -- i never thought would happen again after hitler but it's growing again around europe. it's growing on american campuses. these young, wonderful, brilliant students who have been miseducated to think they need to get involved in approximate anti-semitism on their campuses -- in anti- semitism on their campuses need
to wake up and realize they've been played by people who are not about freedom. it's time for america to wake up. because today, as an anniversary of what happened 100 years ago, is a really big deal for those who want to destroy our way of life and our lives if we're christians. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority eader.
ms. norton: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i come to the floor this of a threat, se a rare threat because this seldom happens in the house ymore, but a threat to try for this house or a member of this house, perhaps more than i know but thus far we have only a single threat, but when it legislation lawful of the district of columbia, that's a threat to democracy.
that means that anyone who represents that city, this city, has to come to the floor d to indicate to members how important it is to hold fast to your own principles, wherever you stand on the district of columbia or any of the underlying issues, this is a local jurisdiction of 650,000 people who play -- who pay taxes without full representation in this house. so i'm asking members of the house not to take advantage of an -- advantage of something in the law which does allow members of the house to step forward if they are inclined to try to get others to join them in nullifying the local laws of a local jurisdiction.
if one reads the history of our country, it's hard to find anything more un-american than that. that's why, particularly i have to thank the bipartisan group of members who stood with me yesterday, thee members of this house -- three members of this house, two democrats and a themselves -- who themselves come from states that have taken action on the underlying issue, one that is rapidly developing in our country where the states differ among themselves. but since each state is as a local or state matter, a government onto itself, those matters don't even come before this house. the members who stood with me yesterday were representatives earl blumenauer of oregon, which has approved a ballot initiative just this past
election day that legalized , all amounts of marijuana representative jared polis of colorado. that was the first state to legalize small amounts of marijuana. and dana rohrabacher of california who is perhaps the -- the recognized leader in the house of representatives and in the country for reform of marijuana laws. alaska and oregon joined two other states, washington and colorado, and, yes, a third state to be joined, the district of columbia, joined alaska and oregon in approving the legalization of marijuana in small amounts in the district of columbia.
i'm going to indicate to the house how that came about, because it didn't come about in the usual way. there were pressing concerns that led the district to move in this way. in fact, the council upon hearing some concerns about disparities in arrests and convictions based on race had had moved to decriminalize rijuana with a small fine, allowing -- whereas today -- or before there was a penalty up to six months in jail and up to $1,000 fine. . after the d.c. council passed that decriminalization law, then -- and 18 states have decriminal iced by -- decriminalized, by the way, then some residents put the
matter on the november ballot. now the people have spoken. 2/3 of the residentses of the district of columbia -- residents of the district of columbia say that the council did not go far enough and they have i think among them a number of reasons that i will try to indicate on the floor this afternoon why they thought hey had to go further. i indicated that there are and already were states that legalized marijuana and the justice department has taken the position and took it again at a hearing on the d.c. decriminalization law that the district would be treated like the states that had relaxed their marijuana laws. in our case, two ounces of
. rijuana for personal use and the position of the justice department, and i will indicator later why the justice department has taken that position -- indicate later why the justice department has taken that position, has been that, as a matter of prosecutorial priority, the justice department, the u.s. attorneys of the united states, are not in the business of prosecuting people who smoke small amount as of marijuana. so the district is to be treated in the same way as the states who have either decriminalized or legalized marijuana. and the justice department is on record in a hearing saying and we appreciate that the district is not to be treated differently when it comes to federal enforcement. any differently than it's treated in, for example, oregon
or colorado or alaska. and you don't see the justice department rushing forward to prosecute what would almost always be young people for possessing small amounts of marijuana. now, particularly for new members, i want to make clear -- there is an anomly here anomly here because the house does still have the authority to step forward and nullify the local laws of the district of columbia. that goes back hundreds of years. and the fact that anybody would attempt to use that now flies in the face of 200 years of history and democraticization. -- democratization of our country. it's interesting to note that the member who stepped forward thus far is a freshman. i simply want to thank members of congress who recognize they
have the authority, they may disagree with the district, have not in fact moved to nullify local law. because this really isn't where you stand on the law. it's whether you believe that local jurisdictions should have who the framers believed we should have. throughout the united states. and that is the right to pass local laws without interference by the federal government. that is the principle at stake here. that's why we rarely have members step forward to try to nullify a law of the district of columbia and i am very grateful that that principle for most members is almost always observed. i want to make something very clear. i am not here this afternoon to make a case for the use of marijuana. i am here to make a case only
for local control of local law. if you were to ask me my preference and obviously i'm obbledwated to support the -- obligated to support the laws of my local jurisdiction here, but if you would ask me my preference, i would say to you in all candor that i don't believe americans should smoke anything. we know that millions of lives went needlessly because people didn't know about the deadly affects. think i do not speak except accurately when i say the deadly affects of cigarette smoking, the cigarette manufacturers are still paying the price with millions of dollars, billions that they've had to pay states in order to make up for essentially hiding information on the affects of cigarette smoking.
frankly there's much investigation still to be done about cannabis. we certainly can't say it's ood for your health except edical marijuana representative rohrabacher yesterday spoke of a constituent whose son had come back from iraq and had a horrific issues -- had horrific ssues and tantrums and problems eming from his service. and no -- emanating from his service. and no amount of medicine had done him any good. he was able to get a prescription for medical arijuana and it controlled the
issues raised. and yet by the way, although there have been bills introduced, the veterans administration could not have per scribed that veteran -- prescribed that veteran medical marijuana. so i can't make the case for the underlying issue. in fact, there is evidence of arm to the brains of children. the bills that have passed the states are for adults only. people over 21. i'm not even making the case for them. we need to know a whole lot more about marijuana. you have to breathe it deeply. i tell you this much. i cannot make a case at all. for a drug conviction for smoking marijuana. in small amounts.
that is where it seems to me there is increasing agreement by the american people. just look at the latest polls. 58% approve legalization. i don't think they approve legalization because they smoke cannabis. i think they approve legalization because they don't think people ought to be convicted of a drug offense for possessing small amounts of marijuana. there is very good news. the reason we always speak of marijuana in young people is that apparently people tend to outgrow use of marijuana. i don't know, as young adults leave college, become more ature, they tend to smoke very little of anything and no longer marijuana. you don't see lots of middle aged people talking about
marijuana. wish i could say that their parents had outgrown alcohol, that people could outgrow alcohol. which is a legal substance. that destroys lives, that all of us understand and have seen. lives of individuals, lives of entire families. some become addicted to the substance. but if all you do is use it and get drunk and don't hurt anybody, then of course you're ot convicted of a crime. a member of this house, representative andy harris, makes the case for nullification of our laws based on harm to young people. except of course the law doesn't allow young people to
smoke. and it's interesting to note that two of the representatives, representative polis, representative blumenauer, no, i'm sorry, it must have been polis, because it's been legal in colorado, id that in colorado that smoking among juveniles has gone down. and i asked him why. and he said, it's because they are wiping out the illegal market and kids have to go to that illegal market to get it because, and to a very illegal market to get it, because they're under 21. so they're smoking less and less in colorado. i don't think you can make the case against freedom and liberty based on children. not here where we're talking about a substance for adults and not when the district of
columbia already has introduced a bill called the marijuana use public information campaign. i like the bill that councilmember tommy wells is taking through council. it would include education forums for each ward of the city, there are eight. and it's trying to get to people where they live, educating the public on what we do know of the impact of marijuana use and abuse. the bill requires that the mayor report to the council on the type and the frequency and the provider and school-age level of public school health education programs related to substance abuse, including marijuana use. and of course alcohol and tobacco. again, not making the case that i cannot in honesty make.
i do want to draw the attention of the house to the fact that marijuana is still classified under schedule one and that is the most -- that's the schedule . r the most dangerous drugs now why is scheduled in the same category with heroin and l.s.d. and ex city? -- ex at thatsy? even though the -- ecstasy, even though the science that we have today tells us that the addictive qualities are nowhere near the same. worse, marijuana is scheduled above cocaine. now, if you want to know a drug that has torn big cities and suburbs alike apart, it would be cocaine. so it is more dangerous according to the scheduling of drugs than cocaine and metadon and oxycontin. kids know that's not the case.
young people who smoke and then outgrow marijuana know it's not the case. so of course they don't pay any attention to the laws. and by the way, as i shall indicate, the laws don't pay much attention to them because most of them do not face the possibility of conviction. they don't face the possibility of conviction. and i want to emphasize this. because when you consider the it's f law enforcement, impossible not to recognize that state and local law enforcement officials, federal law enforcement officials have
the ally ceased to enforce laws that make marijuana a schedule one drug offense. virtually ceased. but some people do get arrested . i have already indicated that the u.s. -- that the justice department has said that it will not prosecute people for possession of small amounts. u.s. attorneys and democratic and republican administrations for years now never -- there are many who have never prosecuted anyone for small amounts of marijuana. in effect, that means that marijuana is so widely used,
has caused so little in the way of harmful affects that it is today de facto legal. that's why young people take the risk. , if at is the case convictions rarely occur, let's look at what happens when arrests and convicts do occur. what led the district of , its ia to pass its law first law, the decriminalization law, where two studies done by outside organizations, two reputable organizations, the lawyers committee for civil rights and the american civil liberties union, they found that while whites and blacks use marijuana
at the same rate, nine out of 10 arrests and convictions are african-americans. now, this city is half white nd half black. the american people thought decriminalization alone would not undo that horrific disparity. a drug conviction on your record is a conviction for a schedule 1 drug offense, and it doesn't matter that the word . ug is what matters that record can sentence, for example, a young black man or a young hispanic man to a lifetime of underemployment or unemployment. indeed, if there is enough
underemployment and unemployment so a drug conviction for a small amount a marijuana can lead some to life further where drugs become, in their view, the only way to make a living at all. so for them it could be a gateway drug precisely because the marijuana arrest or conviction had essentially -- had simply stopped their lives. so when the council understood that nine out of 10 arrests were african-americans, it could not justify keeping that law on the books. and i have to tell you, mr. speaker, that i have now had for 10 years a commission on lack men and boys and the -- and am co-chair of a congressional caucus on black men and boys because of issues like this that affect young men of color.
it can ruin a young man's -- such a conviction can ruin a .oung man's life for work it makes work impossible or work only in the underground or the illegal economy possible, then it ruins his life for marriage and for children and for stability in the community. the commission on black men and boys, the caucus on black men and boys, of course, looks at issues across the board but what it means there's serious concern about disparities of this kind that affect black men and essentially takes them out of the african-american community, out of the hispanic people and make them
apart. marijuana use is simply one example and, again, i point out it is not that people of color use marijuana at a greater rate than their counterparts of the same age who are white. it is who gets convicted. it is who gets arrested. whether that is in the ordinary course of law enforcement, intentional or not, those are the facts. he interesting thing about the district's -- or the investigations of the outside organizations in the district, the independent organizations, that they find that those tatistics showing hugely despair ate treatment of people of -- dess parity treatment of people -- desparate treatment
of people of color of marijuana arrest are no means confined to the district of columbia. it is a nationwide phenomenon. if the great majority of people or not prosecuted on this any other matter and only a tiny minority are and they turn out to be people of color, you have a classic case of racial discrimination. now, i note that i have been joined on the floor by a very good friend from nevada, ms. titus. and i am pleased to ask her to speak for whatever time she desires. ms. titus: well, thank you very much. i'd like to thank my colleague, ngresswoman norton, about an issue that is moving around
state capitals around the united states. i would like to speak about the legal regulated use of medical marijuana for commercial sale. this has garnered -- to allow for legal and carefully regulated and taxed sale and use. we see this in all parts of the country, in all types of communities, and we see it not just passed by state legislatures but mandated through a public research da. i represent the heart of the las vegas valley and the state of nevada where for nearly 14 years we had a voter-approved mandate allowing for medical marijuana. and then just last year the state legislature put forth a legal framework for medical marijuana businesses to be permitted, regulated and to go into operation around the
state. this has led to enormous interests from investors and entrepreneurs, rempers and mostly importantly from patients who now can benefit through the assistance of their physicians from medical marijuana, for treatment for all kinds of things, a variety of things everything from epileptic seizures in children, ptsd treatment, pain relief from cancer, appetite enhancers, for people undergoing chemo therapy and hiv-aids. nevada's now one of 23 states with legal marijuana for medical or commercial sale, and those numbers continue to grow after poll after poll shows increasing support for legalization and regulation. we saw two states just in the election last week where marijuana was approved. now, that brings us to what's happening here in congress. over the course of the last
113th congressional session, we've seen considerable advancement that had not been the case up until now. a few years ago, just a few short -- short time ago only a small group of members of congress would be willing to speak out about medical marijuana, much less support any kind of legislation that would update our nation's antiquated drug laws. but today democrats and some republicans have come together to vadvow indicate for this industry and work -- advocate for this industry and work to update the laws, to catch up what's happening in the states and to reflect the realities of what's going on in nevada, in washington, d.c., and in places around the country. for the first time with the help of leaders like congressman blumenauer, congressman rohrabacher and others, the house of representatives passed not one but two significant amendments to protect the rights of states when it comes to legal
marijuana sale and use. more and more states and communities move forward with ballot initiatives like the one that passed here in d.c. 2-1 or with regulatory laws like those hat were just acted in -- enacted in nevada, it's important that we as representatives of our community become educated and advocate for the community's best interest. because of the important potential role that medical marijuana will play in nevada's economic future and because this conversation is so quickly becoming a national issue, i have tried to educate myself and have been traveling the country, visiting dispenseries, growers and experts in the industry to learn about the fiscal and scientific potential as well as the obstacles that are faced by these businesses. i traveled to the berkeley bloomed group,
dispensery in the san francisco bay to learn more about how the industry has involved from leaders like shawn, ryan hudson and sawa ib are a ham, all of whom are -- ibraham, all of whom are experts in the field of medical marijuana. i went to arizona to visit with two people and discussed the advantages of medical marijuana in treating veterans with ptsd and for helping seniors. i also met with folks at monarch wellness center to hear how an entrepreneur's personal history with his mother's medical condition inspired him to open scottsdale's first medical marijuana dispensery. and i recently traveled to colorado where i was very impressed by can lab's facility that's bringing the highest standards of quality and safety to the medical cannabis industry. i'd encourage my colleagues here in congress to visit these businesses, talk to their employees and see firsthand
that today's industry is not just some little head shop on e corner with a picture of very garra. it's a very scientific, very regulated industry. it's a modern professional office with skilled and educated personnel. so we have more work to do. it's begun but we have a lot to do as we start the 114th congress. we should concentrate on issues that are having a significant impact and bringing uncertainty to an industry that is booming and needs certain protections. we also need to regulate it, to protect children, for example, and also hold it accountable so it can make a financial contribution by being a legal regulated operator that pays taxes. congress should also allow medical personnel at our veterans' hospitals to recommend the best available care for our nation's veterans and that may include medical
marijuana. this could help with the effects of ptsd that are far too common in our iraq and afghanistan veterans. we must also ensure that products are available for vital research into the medical benefits of marijuana. so far the research has mostly been on the negative side. what are the possible positive contributions that can come from studying the benefits so we can advance the science and move us beyond that notion of reefer madness? and as you've been hearing from my colleague, it's important that in considering all of this, congress expect home rule and the will of the people. that is certainly true in the district of columbia. their laws need to be respected because they have been enacted in the best interest of that own community, just as state laws are and we need to respect those states' rights. so i look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on
this important issue and to protect the rights and nterests of those communities, like washington and states like nevada where the people have decided that this is the way of the future. so i thank you for letting me join you today, and i look forward to working with you on this issue. ms. norton: well, ms. titus, i must say i thank you for coming to the floor but i particularly thank you and congratulate you for the extensive home work you have done, educating yourself before you took a position on this issue. it is something to be envied. and i do want to say when you spoke of the need for further investigation and particularly when you consider how many terans with ptsd and other ailments may benefit from medical marijuana, it's worth noting that marijuana is so sharply regulated and
restricted that we've not even been able to do the studies necessary to find out what's wrong with it or what's right with it. for example, medical marijuana cries out for studies. f in fact the ant he can dotal evidence is -- antidotal evidence is to be believed, that should lead to studies by the n.i.h. and federally funded -- what are we afraid of? we need to know more about this substance. on the negative side, we know that it has some harmful effects to the brains of small -- for young children or children. well, we need to more about it for adults. why would the federal government not be upfront considering how widely used this substance is? if they had done the kind of home work they had, ms. titus, i think we'd be much further ahead.
ms. titus: thank you. ms. norton: thank you for coming to the floor with all of that useful information from your own studies. and i particularly appreciate your supporting the district's home rule right to pass its own local laws without federal interference. i thought that's what democrats and republicans believed. i must be asleep. i thought that was the whole contingent of republicans that want to get the federal government even out of federal matters. i thought they would be moore natural allies to -- would be my natural allies, don't mess with any local jurisdiction. yes, even here in the district of columbia. in july the district's marijuana decriminalization bill took effect. i should note that the district passed medical marijuana earlier, one of the strictest laws -- with one of the strictest laws in the united states.
our council has shown it knows ow to handle these issues. the threat that has been made is to use our local budget. now, if you want to know what is our local budget doing here? talk about $6 billion raised in the district of columbia locally by -- from business -- businesses and residents. it comes here again because of that anomally. although district got home rule 40 years ago, there was still the obligation to bring your balanced budget here where there is no balanced budget, so the congress can pass off on it. it's almost resulted in a closed -- shutdown of the district of columbia more than once. it's been a responsible for the fact that the district pace a premium on wall street because
our budget has to be passed by another body that knows nothing about our budget. and to the credit of the appropriations committee, it doesn't even have hearings on our budget. because it doesn't intend to overturn our budget. but it does allow people to come forward and use the budget try to cle to -- to nullify our local laws. rarely done, and i appreciate that because maybes in their own forbearance have tended not to do that. but we do have a threat on this bill. now, the house did pass an amendment that -- where a member came to the floor and offered it and this amendment was not included, i'm pleased to say, in the 2015 short-term resolution or in the senate's fiscal year 2015 d.c.
appropriation bill. so you see there is a real difference here and i hope a in rence that the house contemplation will understand should go with liberty and freedom for the local jurisdiction. the administration has issued a statement of policy that it strongly opposes. the amendment that passed the house. and it did so and here i'm quoting its words, because it violates principles of states' rights and of district home rule. mr. speaker, i note that the district isn't even a pioneer when it comes to marijuana decriminalization or legalization. yet it is the district that's singled out.
there has been no federal interference, no one has come to this floor who may disagree with the notion of legalization to call down the states that have legalized or decriminalized. and i think the reason is because there's several simple -- there's simply no principled way for members who 100% elieve in local control to call out the states who may have taken their own route different from perhaps the states -- indeed the states of -- and the district, there's just no principled way to do anything with respect to what those state have done because those are local matters or state matters. therefore the district is particularly painful not to be respected. because the district has no vote on this floor. when the andy harris amendment was passed, everybody in the
house could vote on it except the member who represents the district of columbia, because i have no vote, even on matters affecting the district of columbia. the democrats controlled the house, i would have had a vote on amendments to appropriation bills because they occur in the committee of the whole, but even that was taken away. so every member got to vote on a matter affecting only my district except the one member that the district sends to the come ss and that is why i to the floor. we pay $12,000 per capita in federal income tax. eep that figure in mind. because that is the highest per capita figure in federal income
. xes paid by any jurisdiction the lowest in federal taxes happens to be mississippi. i point out the difference because i think mississippi pays about $4,000 per capita. the district pays $12,000 per capita. so you can imagine if you support the federal government at this rate and you have no vote on the house floor and others have a vote that can take away your laws, you perhaps have every reason to be concerned. may i ask how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman has 18 minutes remaining. ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker.
when i say that there is no the pled position except american position that local jurisdictions must have complete autonomy to deal with local matters, when i say that i can offer at least one very prominent example. senator rand paul was asked what he thought about the district's legalization -- marijuana legalization initiative. and i want to quote him. senator paul said, i'm not for having the federal government get involved. i really haven't taken a stand , but actual legalization i'm against the federal
government telling them they can't. this is a classic principled position. because senator paul hasn't taken a position on the underlying issue. he's only taken a position consistent with his views and what i thought were the views of my republican and democratic colleagues alike. that the federal government shouldn't tell a local jurisdiction that it can't do what is in this case de facto legal. because the federal government does not prosecute. all i am asking members to do is to take the same principled position that senator paul has taken. notwithstanding senator paul's position, representative harris has said that he will try to insert language into the
omnibus bill. i'm going to try to keep him from doing that. but isn't it interesting to note that representative harris couldn't keep his own state, maryland, from decriminalizing marijuana and so he hops over into my jurisdiction to do what he couldn't do in the state here he has authority. well, we're not going to have t. representative rohrabacher and i disagree on any number of things, that's why i was pleased to come to the floor -- to have him stand with me. but it's interesting what he said, because he has the longest history of fighting for marijuana reform. i want to quote him. he says to his -- he called on members of his own party to, quote, wake up and see where the american people are. representative rohrabacher is from conservative orange
county. he says he believes that his position on marijuana reform may have helped him to gain five points in the last election. he says that he thinks that g.o.p. principles about individual liberty and limited federal government are completely consistent with his own views on marijuana and certainly consist went his own philosophy. and i cite representative rohrabacher and senator rand paul because they have taken positions that i do not believe are incouldn't nat with the positions of their power -- inconsonant with the positions of their party. people are fond of saying that this is not a partisan issue. well, i guess it is. because the parties have not come together on it. what is not a partisan issue, however, is local control of local laws. i want to note what my good
, iend from nevada referred to because senator rohrabacher and the democrat, sam farr, succeeded in passing a bill in this house this very congress that would keep the justice department from intervening in states that have legalized medical marijuana. and this matter passed in a republican house. the fact is that the justice department has indicated it will not intervene and it has not intervened when it comes to medical marijuana or recreational use of medical marijuana when we're talking about small amounts. and yet the house came forward to indicate where it stands. that's where i think the country is going and where the
house is going. but there's an important issue still pending and one that this house has passed and i urge the senate to pass. along with the rohrabacher-farr bill. d that is a bill that is sponsored by representative blumenauer and representative rohrabacher, who were joined at a press conference by grover norquist who of course is the antitax advocate. and their bill, which passed this house, would change federal tax law so that state sanctioned providers can claim deductions and credits as other businesses do. i'm sorry, i said that passed. that did not pass. that is pending. that d pass is a bill
would no longer penalize financial institutions because they provide financial services to state sanctioned marijuana operations. you can imagine those operations now must deal in cash because the banks and the financial institutions are afraid to deal with them. so this bill, which is perhaps the most urgent of the bills, did pass the house and i think again shows growing recognition of where the country is and where the house should be eaded. it's worth noting, just hearing the names of the states that have decriminalized marijuana i think makes the case for where the country is headed. this is decriminalization alone. states that have done so, in
alphabetical order. have red and blue running right through the list. alaska, california, -- i'm lking small amounts, decriminalizing marijuana for small amounts -- alaska, colorado, connecticut, district of columbia, maine, maryland, massachusetts, minnesota, mississippi, nebraska, nevada, new york, north carolina, ohio, oregon, rhode island, vermont, they have nothing in common except they don't convict people for possessing small mounts of marijuana. the congress 40 years ago passed the home rule act. that act says that matters of local law are for the local jurisdiction alone. it was a landmark law.
we intend to have it respected. there were some exceptions, they were very small and i can guarantee you that there were no exception of the kind that i ave spoken about today. legalization in the district of columbia comes from the direct votes of 2/3 of the people in my district. therefore, it comes with a very special mandate. it comes with a mandate of and it nd liberty comes with a very special mandate that the country will note and creasingly
that special mandate is the disparity in arrests based on race where nine out of 10 of the arrests and convictions are for people of color and, by the way, in a progressive city. it is very hard to justify such a law remaining on the books. that is why i think the people went all the way to egalization. so what i am asking this afternoon is for house members and member your own states your cretion who have taken one form or another to relax existing marijuana laws and i'm asking for the residents of the district of columbia simply the same, ordinary privilege.
i particularly ask not only our own members but members who i think would particularly want to take note in the other body cause in that body are senators who represent the 23 states that have passed medical marijuana laws, the 18 states that have passed marijuana decriminalization laws and the four states that have legalized marijuana. it is difficult for me to see how the other body, which had states which have relaxed marijuana in this way could possibly vote not to give equal treatment to the residents of the district of columbia. so, mr. speaker, at bottom i'm asking only for equality of treatment for the residents of the district of columbia. i come in that spirit only i don't ask for your support for
the underlying matter. i ask for your support on the one issue in which i believe i can say members in this body to the last member are in agreement and that is since the very founding of our country the principle that holds us together is federalism, that what happens in a state may not be what we would desire or do in our own, but if it is a local matter and if it is legal and constitutional, then it is for the people of that state. mr. speaker, that is the essence of freedom and democracy. i ask in that spirit for the same respect for the people of the district of columbia that i would give to the people of every state of the union. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the chair lays before the house
enrolled bills. the clerk: h.r. 4194, an act to provide for the elimination or modification of federal eporting requirements. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlewoman from the district of columbia have a motion to adjourn? ms. norton: i do, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. 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 noon on monday next for morning hour debate. >> that wraps up work in the house for the day and the week. earlier, members approved construction of the keystone xl pipeline. 21oined t2ts
republicans. voted present. the senate will vote on it next week. more live house coverage when members return monday at noon eastern for speeches, 2:00 p.m. eastern for legislative work on c-span. >> this weekend, saturday members of the legendary teske ehrman show stories -- tus kegee airmen share stories. >> the gentleman who went over before me came back and taught me. my instructor in basic flying
leonard jackson out of fort hood, texas. he taught me how to fly the at6 and how to do combat fighting, andt flying, cross-country, those men came back and they taught me well, and they taught us well. i guess my other claim to fame first --n primary, my you guys and girls who are interested in flying no after 20 hours of flying the will give you a test, in the test is for you to prove that you have learned what your instructor is supposed to have taught you. my first check ride was with c. alfred anderson, chief anderson, who happened to have taken mrs.
roosevelt up. i did not know any of this until i came out of the service. man, was that it begin with me when i found out that was the anhui to me up -- when that was the man who took me up. releases,eaturing new on religion and conflict, president george w. bush, and john mccain. on american history tv on c-span3, coverage of the world war i centennial symposium from norfolk. find our complete schedule at www.c-span.org, and let us know what you think of the programs you are watching. us, or send as a treat. tweet.
like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. here are a few of the comments we have received from viewers. watch c-span2 and c-span3. i am so pleased with the programming, especially the history aspects. america," a"real short clip where jfk gave ace each in -- gave a speech in berlin. i enjoyed the history programs where the cameras go in and one class beingual conducted by the professors. i have always found that to be wonderful. i enjoyed when they went to , and we heardgs
them talk about the garden of the gods and pikes peak. so once again, please, please keep up the good work. are the only good that came out of the congressional recess because the meant that you put on discussion, the history. i was not prepared to remember the names of the programs, the up theprograms, but keep great work. thank you. >> i am calling to comment on the america center for progress presentation tonight from the secretary of health and human services. i am really upset about that because i would like c-span to gruberve a panel of mr.
and some of the others who have a very different impression of the aca. this lady did the same polishing act that they did initially with presenting this material to us. they assume we are so dumb that we cannot get the details, that we are stupid, you know, as mr. gruber said, but we can sense when there is something deceptive and sleazy going on, and that is why the vote was like it was. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. us, or you can send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. i guess on facebook. -- like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. earlier this month, the supreme court considered a case on
federal whistleblowers. aircase deals with an marshal who was fired after telling the transportation security administration was canceling missions to save money. the tsa says he violated the agency's rule. the supreme court oral argument is an hour. >> we'll hear argument first this morning in case 13894, the department of homeland security vs. robert maclean. mr. gershengorn. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, in section 114(r), congress directed tsa to promulgate regulations prohibiting disclosures that would be detrimental to the security of transportation. the information covered in the tsa regulations ranges from a flight crew's plans for dealing with a hijacking attempt to vulnerabilities in airport
security systems to the kind of federal air marshal deployment information at issue in this case. under the federal circuit's construction of the whistleblower statutes, any one of tsa's 60,000 employees may override tsa's expert judgment and publicly disclose sensitive security information in that employee's possession based on that employee's reasonable belief about what public safety requires. >> at what point was maclean told that this qualified an as ssi? correct me if i'm wrong about this, but as i understood it, he was fired, and it wasn't until the case was before the mspb that a determination was made that this information qualified as what you call ssi. >> your honor, i think that's not quite correct, and let me see if i can work it through. the information the information about federal air marshal deployment has been prohibited
by regulation for more than a decade. it was prohibited expressly prior to 9/11. it was in regulations that were promulgated by tsa after 9/11. >> but when was he first told? >> he was told that air marshal deployment information was ssi in the training, and it's in the regs. he argued before the administrative judge that he was unaware that this information was ssi, and the administrative judge rejected that contention. that's at petitioner's appendix from 100a to 103a. what the administrative judge found was his testimony that he did not know this was ssi was inconsistent, nuanced, and evasive, and the judge rejected that contention. what happens in the tsa final order, which i know your honor is referring to, is that tsa creates a final order determining something is ssi precisely so that it can be appealed to the court of appeals under 49 u.s.c. 46110, which gives a person aggrieved by a tsa order 60 days to appeal something to the court of appeals. mr. maclean did so, and the
ninth circuit rejected his argument that this was retroactive classification of ts -- of ssi. so i think as the case comes to this court, there really is no dispute that he understood that this was ssi. >> but it certainly is -- will, in many cases, be a close question. i was very surprised to see in your reply brief the recognition that the employee can just to quote it, "can tell the media that federal air marshals will be absent from important flights, but declining to specify which flights." i think it would be very difficult to figure out what's ssi and what's not if given that kind of fine line. >> so, your honor -- >> and could he say, there will air marshals have been cut 50% from, you know, transcontinental flights? >> so, your honor, there may be close cases. again, the administrative judge heard this contention from mr. maclean and rejected it. as the case -- >> heard what contention? >> that he did not know that this was ssi, that the federal
air marshal deployment -- well, what about my question? >> mr. maclean was trained in received training on that and as i say in is no that this did know was ssi. a little confused as is justice ginsberg. the briefing that beforehand erally hat something would be distributed to somebody that this was ssi but this particular information wasn't so