tv House Session CSPAN January 21, 2015 12:00pm-4:01pm EST
led to take up debate rules for a bill regarding natural gas pipeline construction permits. that measured will be considered later today. another measure that would limit abortions to the first 20 weeks after conception. that will come to the floor tomorrow. the house is not scheduled to be in session on friday. live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span. while we have a quick second, we learned earlier today via the associated press that house speaker john bane certificate inviting israeli prime minister netanyahu to address a joint session of congress next months about the threats from iran and radical islam. also rebuffing congress' call to delay new saxes against iran. live to the house floor.
each entrusted to cooperate the making of just laws. would promote the flourishing of human freedom. let your light break forth among these our public servants. give us faith that as each new day is bright with promise so, too, is your spirit's power to transform blame and bitterness into concord and unity for the sake of the common good. to you therefore generous spirit of god we commend our work this day that we might walk freely in
your light. one people, whose future is filled with hope. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last daycein a aoues to the hseisppva tof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo. mr. pompeo: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic r ittas,neatn underodinvibl wh bey d ste r l. the speaker: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the messenger: mr. speaker. the speaker: mr. secretary. the speaker: i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver thot house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for
one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? mr. pompeo: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman iowa, mr. young is recognized for one minute. mr. young: i rise today to introduce and recognize my friend bishop richard baits of the des moines diocese. born in st. paul, minnesota and a viking van. he attended the seminary in his hometown. the bishop went on to graduate school at the north american college in rome from the prestigous gregorian university. he was ordained in 1968 at st. peter basilica in rome. his education laid the foundation for his impressive pastoral and administrative service to the church. and i'm proud to say led bishop pace to iowa in 2008 when he was appointed by pope benedict 16 to be the ninth bishop for the diocese of des moines. the bishop is also chair of the
high with a catholic conference for which i thank him for his service. i want to thank bishop pace for opening the house today with the prayer. thank him for his friendship, and ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming bishop pace to the people's house. with that i yield back my time. the speaker:. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields ckis time. the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? . without objection, the gentleman from kansas is recognizedorne minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. tomorrow hundreds of young people from across kansas will join thousands of americans, young and old, on the national had mall for the march for life. they're here to remind us all that in the midst of all the important issues we talk about here in washington, d.c., that every single life is a gift. this year's the 42nd anniversary of roe vs. wade. since then over 55 million abortions have been performed in the united states. mr. pompeo: this stain upon our nation has been allowed to
continue for far too long. yet in the face of this continuing tragedy, i'm encouraged by the fact that today the pro-life movement is stronger than ever. i see the evidence of that movement in the eyes of the young people, young people that will come to washington tomorrow from benedictine college, from bishop carol high school, from both kansas state and newman universities. it will encourage me to continue my efforts to protect the unborn each and every day. while some just talk the talk, tomorrow the young people from kansas will walk the walk and i look forward to joining with them on this very special and important day, to protect this very important right. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields bacth balancef me for what purpose does th genem fw e recognio without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: mr. speaker on monday, a bridge collapsed in cincinnati, ohio, killing one person, and injuring another. this tragedy calls to mind the bridge in new york in 1987
which killed 10 people and the collapse of the i-35 west bridge in minneapolis in 2007 which left 13 dead. i don't know if more transportation funding would have prevented these collapses, but i do know that every second of every day seven cars drive on a bridge that is structurally deficient. there's 69,000 structurally deficient bridges in the nation. there are over 99 structurally deficient bridges in western new york alone. these numbers are unacceptable. congress is failing the american people by failing to address this issue. last night we heard from the president a plan to increase funding for infrastructure. that is a start, but i say we can and must do more. and i encourage my colleagues to pass an infrastructure bill that is large enough to address the real needs of this nation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose ds gentlem frosy sregnio mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlemanpea recognid r e nu. thps: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the men and women of the pennsylvania state showman association. these small business owners have been working together since 1967 to keep the outdoor amusement industry alive and strong through their combined efforts to remain one of the best forms of american family entertainment. i'm proud to have many of these individuals and families in the pennsylvania fifth congressional district, such as the barbols the carpers and the sniders. above and beyond providing good fun, family entertainment, members of the pennsylvania state showman association have remained dedicated to giving back by supporting both youth educational scholarships and f.f.a. programs. since 2005 the pennsylvania state showman association has raised and donated over $350,000 to youth educational scholarships and f.f.a. programming through the work of more than 100 of their volunteers. mr. speaker, the pennsylvania state showman association put their individual goals aside for the common goals of the industry to serve the welfare of the community, the state and the nation.
their generous record reflects success and i thank them for their efforts. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the geas h balance h te. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. ms. fudge: mr. speaker, this must be groundhog day because this house continues to go over and over again about a woman's decision to decide her own health. roe v. wade has confirmed a woman's right. yet republicans continue to introduce legislation like h.r. 36, the ban abortions beginning at 20 weeks with very limited exception. in congress and in several states politicians are interfering in complicated, private medical decisions that should be left to a woman, her family and her doctor. that is why i am proud to co-sponsor, to could introduce the women's health protection -- co-introduce the women's
health protection act. a bill making it unlawful for states to pass restrictive legislation that will endanger women's health and safety. women's reproductive rights must be respected. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio yields backer time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker tomorrow marks the 42-year anniversary since the supreme court decided roe vs. wade. since then, millions of innocent lives have been lost. this is also a time to renew hope, as americans continue to advocate for the respect of all human life. tomorrow upwards of a quarter of a million people from across the nation and many from my district will march from the national mall to the supreme court. in congress we are working to
help their efforts. mr. marchant: i'm co-sponsoring h.r. 36, the pain capable unborn child protection act. this legislation would limit abortion after the age at which evidence shows an unborn child can experience pain. we must continue to stand for legislation that defends the right to life. without which all other rights are impossible. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode isld seek it mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from rhode island is recogniz f oinut mr. cicii: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize mr. keef -- sister anne keef who passed away. she began her life-long fight for those who had no voice and those particularly vulnerable and marginalized. recognizing the challenges that faced our city and our state, she took action to help the poor empower workers, advocate
nonviolence and promote justice for all. providing 30 years of service to our community, she co-founded the institute for the study and practice of nonviolence. which is credited with helping sharply cut the city's murder rate. she started providence city arts to help at-risk youth through the arts and she was involving in creating two dozen other organizations that continue to create opportunity for so many. i had the extraordinary honor of working with sister anne over many years and treasured our friendship. she was a remarkable and strong woman who leaves behind a great legacy. her passing is a tremendous loss to rhode island, but her presence will continue to be felt in the community through the organizations she helped found and run and the positive impact she has had on so many. my thoughts and prayers are with her family and loved ones, rest in peace sister anne. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition. without objection, the gentleman from california is reczed for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker.
earlier this month the president drove right past the fien v.a. hospital a facility at the center of the biggest scandal plaguing our nation's veterans. mr. lamalfa: last night the president hardly skimmed the surface in addressing the major challenges our veterans are facing. but he did mention we need to provide our veterans more job opportunities. we agree. in fact, on this same floor just a few weeks ago, members of the house passed legislation that would do just that. encourage our employers to hire more of our heroes. astonishingly though, our president failed to even mention one word about the excessive wait times, second-rate care, fraudulent records, destroyed files and complete incompetence that's been brought to light last year in the v.a. made no mention on the appeals process or recommendations to improve the lengthy process or our veterans face to access the care and treatment they deserve. the topic a house is scheduled to have a hearing on tomorrow. fixing the v.a. is difficult. but not impossible. and we are here to provide
solutions but we need our leader, who is ready to work with us, to be ready to help us so we can findly -- finally give our veterans a system that works for them, not against them in a timely fashion. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognitn? without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker the three most important topics in the president's state of the union last night were in order of importance, middle class, middle class, and middle class. mr. israel: now, some have called the president's desire to strengthen the middle class with a tax cut class warfare. i have to tell you, if you have been in the middle class you feel like you have survived a war over the past many years. there was the great recession, which was created by bad economic policies between 2000 and 2008, you lost your home values, you lost your 401-k you watched your paycheck strink -- shrink. now you've got through a ron --
now you've gone through a recovery. corporate profits are up 46%, that's good news. the stock market up 92%, that's good news. but you look at your pay stub and you say where's my good news? i'm not keeping pace with everybody else. in 1992 jim carvill famously said, it's the economy, stupid. in 2015, it's my paycheck, stupid. and it's paramount that this congress, democrats and republicans, find ways to provide tax cuts, to provide the break that the great middle class deserves and the break that has alluded them for too long. this is not class warfare, mr. speaker this is growing the great and strong middle class of this country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlemannew she seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from new hampshire is recogd for one minute. mr. guinta: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today to celebrate the life and legacy of chip kenneth from conaway, new hampshire,
who passed away this weekend at the age of 34. after a heroic two-year battle with lung cancer. chippewas a dedicated public servant on this hill, devoted friend, father, husband and inspiration to us all. upon his diagnosis, chip used his capitol hill experience to advocate on behalf of lung cancer research testifyinging before a senate aging committee hearing in 2014 to increase the awareness of the disease. he worked to erase the stigma associated with lung cancer and in doing so left the legacy that will continue touching countless lives. to those who mourn with us today, we rest easier knowing that we could not help but profit from his friendship, his optimism and his sense of humor. he loved life completely and lived it for others. we are all immeasurably better for having known him. my thoughts and prayers go out to his family and loved ones during this difficult time especially his wife, sheila his two children, joe kenneth,
and crosby reynolds as well as his parents. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purposeshe gentlewon om ca seecoitn? without objection, the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today about a bold attack on reproductive freedom. while in the north carolina house i fought tirelessly for women's reproductive choice. ms. adams: as the 100th woman in the congress, i'll do the same in the u.s. house and the fight begins with speaking against this bill. women's health decisions are personal, should be between a woman, her family, her doctor, not the north carolina house, not the u.s. house. h.r. 36 would add barriers for women who often face complicated heartbreaking circumstances. i join other women who adamantly oppose this bill including many of my republican colleagues. today i stand with senators representatives and activists in delivering 150,000 american signatures opposing this bill
and i respectively urge my colleagues not to support this legislation. a woman cannot call herself free who does not own or control her own body. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south calina seekecn? . without objection the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to recognize and honor an american hero. mr. william trammell was born january 28 1920. a lifelong resident of anderson county, he graduated from clemson university in 1941 in the exceptional glass of graduates nope as the wartime class, where 576 his classmates lost their lives in world war ii. they compose the backbone of what we understand today the greatest generation. he joined the first engineering amphibian brigade during the war. he participated in north american invasion as well as campaigns in tunisia, southern italy, and southern france. fortunately, he returned home after 3 1/2 years overseas suffering only minor injuries.
once home he pursued the american dream. mr. trammell successfully operated three businesses, one of which is still in operation today and operated by his oldest son. mr. trammell along with his wife worked on the eisenhower campaign and to this day he represents the highest quality of individual we expect as americans. he has served his community, his family, and country with honor, dignity, and love. today i would like to wish mr. trammell a happy 95th birthday. mr. speaker, i encourage the house as well as all americans to strife and live life as this exceptional man has and dedicate their lives to something greater than themselves. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balancehi. for wh ppo ds e n fm illoiseek cnion? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objectne gentlewoman illinois is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last night president obama called on congress to work together on behalf of the american people. it's the call i hear from my constituents in illinois every day. so as we begin the 114th congress, i rise on their behalf
to urge my colleagues to rise above partisanship to strengthen our economy and put even more americans back to work. mrs. kelly: today all signs point to our economy being the strongest it's been in nearly a decade. businesses are flourishing. we gained nearly three million new jobs. there are still 8. million americans living in the shadow of the economic crisis who are struggling with chronic unemployment. they deserve a congress that is focused and united in putting them back to work. let's work to reduce the tax burden on the middle class. putting more money in their pockets and making it easier for them to afford their homes and sending their kids to school so that the american dream is within everyone's reach. americans want a congress that can overcome partisan gridlock to put the people first. i urge my colleagues to put politics aside to find a middle ground to help our middle class and put more americans on the path to opportunity and
prosperity. oy yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? without objection the gentleman from washington is recognized for one mut mr. new house: thank you, mr. speaker. as the newly elected congressman from central washington, i rise to mark the 150th birthday of a county at the heart of my congressional district. and a county where i was born and am proud to call my home. the washington territorial legislature created yakima county in 1865. nearly 25 years before washington itself became a state. i'm a third generation yakima county farmer. my family and i continue to operate a 600 acre farm near the city of sunny side. even before creation of the county, the agricultural industry recognized the vast environmental benefits of the region.
today agriculture remains the lifeblood of the economy and i am pleased to represent those interests before the house committee on agriculture. today marks yakima county's sesquicentennial, happy 100th birthday. it's an honor to represent you in congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields ba theal of s me. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek con? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: ou obje the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. when jobs are shipped overseas because of bad trade deals, communities of color bear a huge brunt on the loss of those jobs. over the 2.7 million jobs lost to china as a result of past trade deals, nearly one million of those jobs lost belong to people of color. one million jobs. even after they lost their jobs,
bad trade deals continue to harm them. when they found another job, it was on average for a nearly 30% lower wage. trade deals like the transpacific partnership, which is being negotiated in see get, wreak havoc on communities of color. we cannot allow more bad trade deals to be enacted, especially when unemployment rates and poverty rates in these communities is much too high already. congress must consider the consequences of these trade deals on communities of color and all workers in our country given the terrible impacts of past trade deals. we must demand transparency, ensure that environmental and labor standards are protected, food safety standards and insist that congress exercise its constitutional responsibility in ensuring fair and free trade. t.p.p. is certainly not fair and must be defeated. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for wrpe es the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous
consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without obon the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. ms. fo:nk you, mr. speaker. the american people spoke loud and clear in november, but it's evident from last night's state of the union that president obama wasn't listening. despite a rejection of his policies at the ballot box, the president continues to propose outdated washington centered ideas that simply don't work. the american people want washington to stop interfering in their lives and they don't need more one-size-fits-all federal dictates. republicans have a vision for the future, but president obama appears to be mired in the past. last night the president expressed a willingness to work with republicans and i hope that gesture is sincere. in the past, working together too often meant agreeing with whatever the president said. it's time for president obama to live up to his rhetoric. house republicans are eager to work together to increase opportunities for all americans and empower people not
washington. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro temrewiou object the gentlewoman from nevada is recognized for one minute. ms. titus: i rise today in opposition to h.r. 36. this bill is a direct challenge to the supreme court's ruling 42 years ago in roe vs. wade. it's a dangerous attack on a woman's constitutional right to choose. the bill does not include an exception for the fiscal or emotional health of a woman. it fails to provide sufficient protections for victims rape and incest. and it has only a very narrow exception when a woman's life is in danger. in short, the bill significantly reduces the safe legal options that women have and prevents doctors from providing the most medically appropriate care for their patients. republicans have repeatedly demonstrated a disregard for women's health care and this bill is just one more example of
their continuing attack on women's rights. it's a step backward for women's health and quite simply a distraction from the important work that we should be undertaking. i urge my colleagues to oppose it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from nevada yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gtlanro virginiisnifo minute. mr. beyer: i rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary woman and my constituent, carol glover, who passed away on monday, january 12, as a result of the tragic incident aboard metro train 302. carol was a devoted mother who raised her two sons in alexandria, virginia. many of her friends and family describe her as the ultimate sports mom cheerleader because she could often be found cheering on the sidelines at her sons' football soccer, and basketball games. she was also the den mother for her son's cub scout troop. she had a successful 20-year
career as a contractor for the federal government. she studied computer programming at drexel university where she graduated with honors and recently received the employee of the year honor. it was clear she was as diligent in her work as she was in raising her children. she'll be remembered as a woman of strong faith with a gentle demeanor and warm heart. at her funeral her mother described her, she said, in life we all have a dark tunnel to go through. stay on track, you'll see the light at the end of the tunnel. her mother believed that carol found that light. she believes in her sons who served in the u.s. marines for 13 years and her son who works for a christian nonprofit here in washington d.c. our thoughts and prayers go out to her family, friends and all those whose lives were touched by this amazing woman. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back the balance of his ti o the for what purpose doeshe gena pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker.
it was an honor to attend the state of the union address last night for the first time representing the sixth congressional district of pennsylvania. mr. costello: after listening to the president's speech, i hope that he will find common ground and work with congress on a number of complex issues facing our nation. including enacting job creating policies for hardworking families. fixing our broken health care system. and reining in our out of control debt. that's just to name a few. but unfortunately there were a number of veto threats and proposals which amount to more government overreach into the lives of hardworking taxpayers. americans are looking for congress and the president to work together, not for the president to take a go it alone approach and repeatedly threaten use of veto power or looking to grow our federal government any further. that said, i agree specifically
with the president's desire for improving cybersecurity and legislation and creating more economic opportunity for our nation's veterans. i disagree with his approach on other matters discussed specifically certain tax reform measures that will ultimately amount to a trickle-down tax increase on middle class americans. i am confident we can find common ground and adequately fund or nation's transportation and infrastructure needs and look forward to doing that. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, by direction of the house republican conference, i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house reti 39, resolved that the following named members be and are hereby -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to dispense wihe reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 38 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolutio thclk:ou calendar number 3, house resolution 38, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill, h.r. 161, to provide for the timely consideration of all licenses, permits, and approvals required under federal law with respect to the citing, construction, expansion, or operation of any natural gas pipeline project. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. and two, one motion to recommit.
section 2, upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 36 to amend title 18 united states code to protect pain capable unborn children, and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees. and two, one motion to recommit. . 7 the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina isogzefoone hour. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of deba ly i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such tomb time as i may consume -- such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legendive days to revise and extend their remarks -- legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: this provides for closed rule, providing for consideration of h.r. 36, the pain-capable unborn child protection act, and a closed rule for consideration of h.r. 161, the natural gas pipeline permitting reform act. the rule before us today mr. speaker, provides for consideration of h.r. 36, the pain-capable unborn child protection act. it is truly fitting that the house consider this legislation in the shadow of the 42nd anniversary of the roe v. wade and d.o.e. v. bolten decisions that gave -- doe vs. bolten decisions that gave americans abortion on demand. this is a commonsense step in recognizing the truth the science has made more clear with the passage of time.
the unborn child in the womb is alive and the functioning member of the human family. science has shown us the most fundamental precursors to an unborn child feeling pain are already in place by eight weeks in development. necessary connections between the brain and spinal cord are in place and complete by 18 weeks. the house judiciary committee heard testimony by expert physicians that the earlier premature babies are delivered, the more acutely they feel pain. it's clear that unborn children at 20 weeks of development are capable of feeling pain and deserving protection. in spite of the 60% of americans who believe we should limit abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will continue to protest this sensible legislation. seeking to keep us in the company of only seven other nations that allow elective abortion after 20 weeks, which
includes such well known human rights leaders as north korea, china and vietnam. this vital life-saving legislation is not the only important legislation the house will consider this week. this rule also provides for consideration of h.r. 161, the natural gas pipeline permitting reform act. the natural gas pipeline permitting reform act recognizes the positive impact america's shale revolution has had on energy prices and the potential it holds to lower them further. we're in the midst of another hard winter and red tape reduction is necessary to ensure we have the infrastructure needed to ensure low-cost natural gas is able to reach our coldest states when they need it most, without price shocks or shortages. hrmentrlt -- h.r. 161 introduces critical reform to ensure prompt consideration of necessary permitting requests for construction or updates to
natural gas pipelines. providing certainty to energy companies and the consumers they serve. the legislation would require the federal energy regulatory commission to approve or deny requested pipeline certificates no later than 12 months after receiving a complete application that is ready to be processed and has engaged in the prefiling process. h.r. 161 also ensures that relevant agencies provide approval or denial within 90 days of the federal energy regulatory commission completing its final environmental document. finally, the legislation would put permits into effect notwithstanding agencies' failures to provide approval within the time mandated, with allowances for the conditions consistent with the final environmental document. h.r. 161 is the reintroduction of h.r. 1900's which passed this house on a -- 1900's which passed this house on a --
1900's -- 1900 which passed this house. this had numerous hearings on the underlying issues prompting the legislation as well as the subcommittee hearing and subcommittee and full committee markups on the bill. both h.r. 36 and h.r. 161 are truly important legislation that americans would be well served to have considered this week and i commend both my bills to my colleagues as deserving of their support. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina rvebancofer time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentlelady from north carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mrsp i he eat respect for the gentlelady from north carolina, i don't have a lot of respect for this proelse is. i'd like to begin today by saying a word or two about the process being used by the republicans here on the floor. actually, three words. it stinks again.
we were all very happy delighted even, to hear our republican friends say that they wanted to make this congress into a place where we can work together. but actions speak louder than words and here are some of their actions. five closed rules. until yesterday 100% of our rules committee meetings have been so-called emergency meetings. and 100% of the bills the committee has sent to the floor have drawn a veto threat. and once again the republicans are using one rule for multiple bills. and this is a disturbing pattern that's quickly becoming a bad habit. the republican leadership apparently isn't content to exclude democrats from offering substantive, germane and thoughtful amendments, they're also shutting down the debate itself. mr. speaker, this congress is only a few weeks old. we have 23 months left to go. are the republicans really saying that we can't find an extra hour for debate during the next 23 months?
of course we can. they just prefer not to. it's unfair it's undemocratic, it's unnecessary and it needs to stop. now, as the bills before us today last night as we all know, president obama laid out a bold, clear and exciting agenda to spur economic growth and ensure prosperity is shared by all americans. not just the wealthy few and special interests. i thought it was a terrific speech. but apparently my republican friends weren't paying very close attention. i know they were there, in this chamber, because i saw many of them. the speaker himself was sitting right behind the president. maybe they were sending each other cat videos or taking selfies, because the president made it very clear that if congress sends him bills that move us backward, he will veto them. and both of these bills deserve his veto. the first, h.r. 161, is a solution in search of a
problem. it's as simple as that. the bill would automaticly approatasin projec ife or r algeio t t d ptsr cerfis within a rigid, unworkable time frame. a g.a.o. report concluded that ferc's people line permitting process is predictable and consistent, with 91% of pipeline applications receiving a decision within 12 months. during committee testimony last congress, even industry representatives agreed that the current permitting process is, and i quote generally very good end quote. it's not every day that regulators in industry agree that the current system works. so, why would we move forward on a bill that disrupts the system that works is beyond me. in fact, this bill makes it more likely that ferc will deny more projects just to comply with a severe timeline. in massachusetts we're dealing with the proposed tennessee gas pipeline, which would run through parts of my district
and would cut through a number of environmentally sensitive lands, including northfield state park and the montague aquifer and management area. yesterday in the rules committee, i offered an amendment with my good friend, congresswoman tsongas, whose district would always be affected by the proposed pipeline, to keep existing review process in place for proposed pipelines that cross federal, state or local conservation or recreation lands. because if we've already invested federal and state money into identifying these lands, as environmentally sensitive, it doesn't make any sense to expedite the approval of a pipeline that could bulldoze right through them. it's worth a debate. unfortunately republicans on the rules committee voted down this commonsense amendment on a party-line vote and as the gentlelady from north carolina pointed out, both of these rules are completely closed. even though they did not go through regular order, even though there were no hearings in this congress and no markup,
nobody, no democrat, no republican, can offer an amendment. and then there's h.r. 36. this is just the latest republican assault on women's reproductive rights. it's their latest attempt to put politicians in the middle of the private medical decisions of women. it is blatantly unconstitutional and it fails to take into consideration the fact that some pregnancies can have catastrophic, heartbreaking complications. even after 20 weeks. to make matters worse, this legislation lacks a reasonable exception for victims of rape and incest, by requiring victims to report cases of rape and incest to law enforcement in order to have access to an abortion. this despite the fact that research shows that the majority of sexual assaults are unreported. and on top of that, the exception on incest is only for minors. mr. speaker, what really bothers me about bills like this is that the same people who vote for them routinely
vote to cut the w.i.c. program, to cut head start and child care programs and snap and school lunch programs and he will meantry and second err -- elementary and secondary education funding. this hypocrisy is breath taking. mr. speaker, leading medical groups agree that doctors in consultation with women and their families should make medical decisions, not politicians. mr. speaker, the american people deserve better, they deserve a better process and they deserve better legislation. we certainly have a lot to do to help get this country to continue on the road to prosperity. to make sure that everybody can share in this economy's growth. so i urge my colleagues, let's focus on those issues. let's come together and do something for the american people. enough of these message bills. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reseeshealce of his . the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i need to remind
this house that during the democrat's time in the majority, there are two rules packages providing consideration of seven unrelated measures. in the 110th congress, their first year in the majority, the rules package provided for consideration of five measures. in the 111th congress, the democrat majority provided for the consideration of two separate measures in the rules package. the democrat majority went directly to the floor with these bills, with no committee consideration and without even allowing the rules committee to debate these measures or report an appropriate rule for consideration. in the 110th congress ranking member slaughter and democrats on the rules committee reported three additional closed rules, starting the congress out with eight closed rules in the opening weeks. in the 111th congress democrats reported out two additional closed rules for a total of four closed rules in the opening weeks of that congress. unlike our democrat colleagues, the speaker and chairman sessions have provided the
opportunity to have hearings before the rules committee. it is our goal to return to regular order now that our committees are organizing, but the false attacks by my colleagues do not stand up to the light of day when you compare our records. mr. speaker, i now yield four minutes to the gentleman from new jersey one of the preeminent defenders of life in this congress, mr. smith, four four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. smith: i thank my friend for yielding, for her strong leadership for human rights and the unborn. mr. speaker pain we all dread it, we avoid it, we even fear it. we all go to extraordinary lengths to mitigate its severity and its duration. yet human beings today are subjected to a deadly, extraordinarily painful procedure, one of which is called the dismemberble method the d anderson e. this is a modest but necessary
attempt to at least protect babies who are 20 weeks old and pain-capable from having to suffer and die from abortion. children cl including children with disabilities, mr. speaker, deserve better treatment than pain-filled dismemberment. one leading expert in the field of fetal pain at the university of tennessee stated in his expert report commissioned by the u.s. department of justice, the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation if not earlier, and the pain perceived by the fetus is possibly more intense than perceived by newborns or older children. assistant professor at the division of neoanywaying to in her testimony before the house committee said, when we speak of infants at 20 weeks
postfertilization, we no longer have to rely on inferences or ultrasound technology. because such premature patients are kicking, moving and reacting in developing right before our eyes in the neonatal intensive care unit. in other words, there are children the same age in utero that can be killed by abortion and painfully, who have been born and are now being given life-saving assistance. she went on to say, in today's medical arena, we resuscitate patients at this age and are able to witness their growth. i could never imagine she says, subjecting my tiny patients to horrific procedures such as those that involve limb detachment for cardiac injection. again, that's what the abortionists do. . surgeons are entering the woman to perform surgeries on unborn children and they have seen
those babies flinch jerk around, move around recoil from sharp objects and incisions. as they seek to heal, surgeons are today routinely administering anesthesia to unborn children in the womb, a best medical practice, to protect them from pain. we now know the child ought to be treated as a patient and the remaining anomaly, sicknesses that can be treated with a degree of success while the child is in utero. the child should be seen as a patient. last june "time" magazine's cover story saving preemies, explored the revolution and how cutting-edge medicine and dedicated caregivers are helping the tiniest babies to survive and thrive. "time" says thanks to advances that have been made even in just a few years, the odds of surviving and thriving are improving all the time.
abortionists, on the other hand mr. speaker, are in the business of ensuring that children neither survive nor thrive. children, including children with disabilities, deserve better treatment than pain-filled dismemberment. i yield back to my colleague. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: before i yield to the ranking member of the rules committee i do -- i want to respond to this issue of process. when speaker boehner became the speaker of this house, in his opening speech one of the things he said, i'll quote, you will always have the right to a robust debate and an open process that allows you to represent your constituents to make your case, offer alternatives, and be heard. we clearly have not been granted that in any way shape, or form. while the gentlelady may point to the sins of the past of democratic majorities, nothing compares to what the republicans
did in the last congress. the republicans presided over the most closed congress in the history of the united states of america. you made history. and that is not something to be proud of. when my friends talk about openness and transparency and about the desire to allow this to be a deliberative place where people of varying viewpoints can have a forum to debate it's not reflected in reality. and we are beginning this congress just as my colleagues conducted the last congress. the most closed and most closed -- in the most closed possible way. i regret that very much. especially on bills that have not even been through the committee hearing process in this congress or have not been marked up. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, the ranking member of the rules committee, ms. slaughter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognid r ree minutes. ms. slaughter: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague for his great work and yielding to
me. mr. speaker, today the "wall street journal" polled the american public and found that these are their top three priorities. creating jobs d.e.a. feeting isis, and reducing the federal budget deficit. i ask unanimous consent to insert that piece in the "wall street journal." the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: why am i bringing that up? because the offense to me is that there are so many people in congress that always want to bring up this issue of eating away at roe v. wade. they don't have the nerve to try to take that away. roe v. wade gave women a choice. and i believe that if you don't want to have that choice yourself, don't use it. but what right do people who do not agree with choice have to make it the law of the land? to require everybody to live under what they believe is true. now, there is not a scintilla of
scientific evidence that at 20 weeks pain is felt. the neural connections are not there to have that happen. and i also want to insert into the record what scientists have said from the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists. executive vice president and others into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: what people have said that this is not possible. but i have learned as a scientist that this congress does not take scientific facts as facts but views them as maybe suggestions. how often is it we are playing with people's lives, the most personal decision that they could ever make, that should be made between a woman, her family, her -- whoever she wants to consult, her doctor, her pastor, anybody. but not the congress of the united states. why do men in blue suits and red
ties get to make that decision when it has nothing to do with scientific or medical facts? it is absolutely astonishing to me that this continues over and over again and for states that have passed a 20-week abortion bill have always been overturned by the constitutional question. and this will be as well. but time and time we are asked about it. obstetricians gineologists the world over have refuted scientific and factual premises of this bill. nobody cares about that. i saw a great button called the people here who are trying to do this today, gynatician. that's described as a politician who knows more about women's health than doctors do. now we go on with this but again, we need to remember that
last night half the president's speech dealt with people who were underpaid. struggle to live in america. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentlelady an additional two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for an additional two minutes. ms. slaughter: barney frank, our former colleague said many people believe life begins at conception and ends at birth. i want to know how this congress will comply with what the president asked us last night. will you give more money for childcare for daycare? will you give more money for early education? will you make sure that mothers are paid as much as men that she's working the same job and pays the same? will you do something about paid sick leave? will you help these children get to college? absolutely not. the record has been clear on all of these issues. so there's something really awful that would take up the time to please the base of some sort out there against all scientific belief and everything
that we know about medicine. i wish this congress would stop the folly. we are faced with a lot of serious problems in this country. to begin as my colleague points out, we have no ability to amend it. nobody has to be heard on anything else. it is simply going to be voted on. the senate may or may not ever take it up. the president will not sign it. it's the same thing we did last session. over and over, kill health carement nothing is going to be signed. it is a shame. i have labeled it before as legislative malpractice. that's exactly what's going on with this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from new york yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts roiches. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. mitts fox: thank you, mr. speaker. -- ms. foxx: thank you mr. speaker. once again we find ourselves in a position where we must correct the record. over the last four years
republicans have implemented reforms to make the u.s. house of representatives more open and transparent than ever. under this g.o.p. majority, members on both sides of the aisle have been allowed to offer significantly more amendments than the house has operated under far more open rules than were allowed under the previous democrat-controlled house. the g.o.p. majority allowed nearly 1,500 amendments to be considered on the house floor in the 113th congress. under speaker pelosi, the house did not consider a single bill under an open rule throughout the 111th congress. that is the definition of a closed process, mr. speaker. and it's precisely what speaker boehner successfully changed to start the 112th congress and throughout the 113th congress.
under the current g.o.p. majority, the house has considered 38 open or modified open rules. when you compare the record of the republican majority, the most recent democrat majority, any fair analysis will show that republicans are running a more open transparent house of representatives that allows for greater participation by all members. the problem throughout last congress resided in the senate and it's failure to act on almost everything passed by the house. when the senate did decide to act, then majority leader, democrat, harry reid, virtually locked down the amendment process on the senate floor. when you compare the nearly 1,500 amendments considered on the house floor with the senate's record of inaction a more accurate picture emerges. mr. speaker i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from maine mr. polyquinn.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine is recognedwo minutes. mr. poliquin: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the rule and most importantly the underlying bill h.r. 161, the natural gas pipeline permitting reform act. i encourage all of my colleagues, republicans and democrats, to support this important job creation bill. the great state of maine is home to the most skilled paper makers in the world. even so, last year mills in bucksport, closed. laying off 1,000 of our workers. soon, a fourth mill in madison will temporarily shut down throwing another 250 workers. for each mill, the high cost of
electricity to run its machinery was the primary reason for closure. almost half the power plants in new england were a natural gas degenerated elech terrorist electricity. we must allow the increased production in transportation of natural gas to drive down the cost of electric power and save our mills, our factories, and save our jobs. today i'm proud to co-sponsor this new legislation to expedite the permitting to construct more, a larger capacity natural gas pipelines throughout america. i ask my republican and democrat colleagues to ban together in supporting this critically important jobs bill. it's fair and the right thing to do. hardworking american taxpayers deserve a more effective government that works togetherle to solve our serious problems.
we have the responsibility and the authority to help our families live better lives with fatter paychecks and more financial security. let's get this done. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north caroesve the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: let t say for the record, facts are facts are facts. there's no denying that the republican congress -- last republican congress held the record for the most closed rules in the history of the united states. and maybe i misunderstood the current rule, but to the best of my knowledge, not a single amendment is allowed. notwithstanding that in this congress there were no hearings or markup. is it appropriate mr. speaker, to ask unanimous consent to amend h.r. 36 to make it an open rule? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina would have yield. mr. mcgovern: would the gentlelady from north carolina yield? there it is.
mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lee: i thank the ranking member for yielding and his leadership and making it clear what we are dealing with today. why many of us strongly oppose this rule and this bill. today is the anniversary of roe vs. wade. over 40 years ago the supreme court ruled that a woman can make her own personal health care decisions without interference from politicians. yet here we are again in 2015 debating this actually protected right again. h.r. 36 would ban all abortions at 20 weeks with extremely limited exceptions. a ban on abortion after 20 weeks makes it harder for women who are already facing difficult circumstances. this is so bad. this is so wrong. every woman has a right to a safe, medical procedure, and this decision, while difficult is hers to make not yours and
not mine. this is her decision. this bill is part of a broader effort to chip away at abortion access, a right that has already been decided by the supreme court and is the law of the land. yet republicans are once again focused on dictating what women can do with their bodies denying their rights, and endangering their health. mr. speaker, this radical -- that's what it is, it's a radical g.o.p. bill it undermines women's constitutional rights under roe vs. wade. this is a dangerous assault on women's health freedom. women should not have to justify their personal medical decisions. abortions later in a pregnancy can involve rare, severe fetal abnormalities or pose serious risks to the health of women, but these procedures may be medically necessary to save a woman's life. this is an agonizing decision that a woman should make with her doctor and her family or
whomever but not her congressional representatives. . we have seen what happens when politicians interfere in these deeply perm medical decisions. doctors, the american medical association has stated very clearly -- can i have an additional 30 seconds? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman voiced. ms. lee: the medical association has stated very clearly that this bill compromises a doctor's ability to provide medical treatment in the best interests of the patient. members of congress have no right to interfere in health care decisions of women. this is a private matter and last time i looked, i thought in this country we do have a right to privacy. so we've got to continue to fight against these attacks on women's health, on our constitutional rights, and on the right to privacy. so i hope you vote no on this bill -- rule and no on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachus rs.
the ntwon omor ra recognized. ms. foxx: thank you mr. speaker. the gentleman from massachusetts knows very well that the number of closed rules last congress was a procedural effect of republicans' efforts to reopen the government. america tires of this debate. let's return to real issues with an impact on americans' lives. mr. speaker, we go to extraordinary lengths in this country to save the lives of born human beings. because we value life so much. however, there are many who do not hold the unborn in the same esteem and that is tragic for the more than one million unborn babies who lose their lives every year. there's nothing more important than protecting voiceless, unborn children and their families from the travesty of abortion. mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from kansas, mr. huelskamp. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recoed two minutes. mr. huelskamp: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady from
north carolina for yielding. over these next two days you'll hear many of my colleagues rise in support of h.r. 36, as well they should. this bill protects pain-capable, preborn children from being subjected to violent dismembering abortions. also known as d&e abortions. one former abortionist testified in may 2013, before the house judiciary committee, and described the procedure by saying, a second trimester d&e abortion is a blind pressure. picture yourself -- procedure. picturier self reaching in with a clamp and grasping anything you can. once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jowls and pull hard, really hard. this is from a former abortionist describing the procedure. you feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about six inches long. reach in again and again with
that clamp and tear out the spine, heart and lungs. how disgusting. how repugnant. how wrong. any nation, any party, any person that claims to respect human rights and accepts basic science must reject this pain-filled act of barbarism. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and most important in supporting h.r. 36. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north caro reserves. the gentleman from ast is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemaisecnid r two minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill. this bill is just as unconstitutional as it was when it was introduced in the last congress. it poses just as serious a risk
to the health and civil liberties of american women. and this time around it comes with an additional slap in the face to women. because if this rule passes, the bill will come to a vote on the 42nd anniversary of the supreme court's decision in roe v. wade. by attempting to outlaw almost all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, this bill would clearly violate the constitutional principles the court laid down in that decision a generation ago. women must be allowed to decide their health care decisions. they need to do it in consultation with their doctors, with their families, with their clergy and not have those decisions made for them by washington politicians. the republican majority always claims to be against government overreach and for science. well, they should take a look at the legislation they bring to the floor. this bill would extend the
federal government's reach all the way into the doctor's office and it denies medical science. it threatens jail for a procedure that's constitutionally protected and often medically necessary. it places obstacles in the way of rape victims who seek help, and it would put thousands of women at risk. in short, this is another republican ideological assault on women. we should reject it wholeheartedly. our priorities should be to help american workers with jobs, with increased wages, including women, not turning the clock back to the 1950's with this kind of unconstitutional posturing. i urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying bill and truly vote for women in the united states today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the genem fm massachutts reserves. the gentlewoman from nth carolis recoed.
ms. fx: thank you, mr. speaker. it's important to respond to the charge that this legislation is unconstitutional. in 2007 the supreme court upheld the federal partial birth abortion ban act as an appropriate use of congress' powers under the commerce clause. this legislation follows that act's model by asserting congress' authority to extend protection to pain-capable unborn children under the commerce clause and equal protection, due process and enforcement clauses of the 14th amendment. it's sad that opponents of this legislation are attempting to use the constitution as a roadblock to prevent life-saving legislation. but the supreme court's position is clear. with that, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. franks: i thank the
gentlelady. mr. speaker, a great shadow looms over the home of the brave. more than 18,000 very late-term abortions are occurring in america every year and placing the mothers at an exponentially greater risk and subjecting their pain-capable babies to torture and death without anesthesia. it's the greatest human rights atrocity in the united states today. almost every other major civilized nation on earth protects pain-capable babies at this age. and every credible poll of the american people shows that they are overwhelmingly in favor of protecting them. and yet we have given these little babies less legal protection from unnecessary painful cruelty than the protection we have given farm animals under the federal humane slaughter act. mr. speaker, i would submit to you that today the winds of
change have begun to blow. and that the tide of blindness and blood is finally turning in america. because today we take up the pain-capable unborn child protection act in this chamber. it is not perfect mr. speaker. each one of us would have written it a little differently, if we could have done so. however, no matter how it is shoulted down or what dis-- shouted down or what distortions or deceptive what-ifs distractions, diversions, twists of words changing of the subject or blatant falsehoods the abortion industry hurls at this bill and its supporters, it is a deeply sincere effort beginning at the sixth month of pregnancy, to protect both members -- mothers and their pain-capable babies from the atrocity of late-term borks on demand and -- late-term abortion on demand and ultimately it's one all humane americans can support if they truly understand it for themselves. mr. speaker, what we are doing to these babies is real and we
all know it. and it is time to change and protect them. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i'm proud to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from massachusetts. ms. clark: thank you to the gentleman from massachusetts for yielding. here we go again. instead of prioritizing the needs of women and families, we are once again discussing a bill that attacks women's rights. when i asked the women in my district what they need, they talk about not being able to find quality, affordable child care. but here in congress we're talkinging about a bill that tells women they don't have a right to plan their own family. women in my district talk about making sure they receive equal pay for equal work.
what are we talking about? a bill that tells women that politicians are are better able to make their health decisions than they are. women in my district talk about making sure victims and survivors of domestic violence have the resources they need to build a better life. but we're talking about a bill that tells a woman that if they become pregnant because they were raped, they better have a police report to prove it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. ms. clark: thank you. american women pay taxes, raise their families, contribute to our economy and are over half of the elect rathe -- electorate. yet rather than helpinging these women succeed and growing our -- helping these women succeed and growing our economy, we give them this bill. that forces backward ideological beliefs into women's private medical decisions. i urge my colleagues to get
back to work for women and families of this country and reject this dangerous bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentlem f massachuttrerv. the gentleman from nth carolin is recogniz. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. it's disappointing to hear my colleagues criticize this legislation in this way. we consider many weighty issues in this body with great implications for our future. but few of those issues command our attention as much as those that impact children as this legislation does. this is right and appropriate. i fear for both our future and our present, if we continue to tolerate the death of innocent children in the womb. every life matters. it's my hope that a culture of life will take hold and all children will be protected in law in the near future. but today we have an opportunity to come together and find consensus that nearly
fully developed viable children should be protected. particularly as individuals capable of experiencing great pain. the necessity of that protection is made even clearer when considering the type of abortion these growing children are are are are subjected to. mr. speaker, it's important -- these children are subjected to. mr. speaker, it's important people understand what happens when they hear the word abortion. according to planned parenthood, the largest abortioner in america, baby -- abortion provider in america, babies are often subbletted to dismemberment -- subjected to dismemberment abortions which are incredibly gruesome and painful. what follows is heartwrenching to describe mr. speaker. but we must face the truth of what we are currently permitting. as if in a horror movie, the
abortionist begins by suctioning out the amneonic fluid, then rips the limbs from the infant's body with a steel tool and finishes by crushing the skull of the infant he's dismembered. take a moment to consider that. this is the most common abortion performed in the second trimester. not a rare tragedy. as a nation we rightfully give the safety of our children the highest importance. in spite of that, we continue to allow these horrific procedures that an had overwhelming majority of -- that an overwhelming majority of nations in the world have sworn off. as i mentioned before, only seven nations allow elective
abortions after 20 weeks gestation. how can america continue to be one of them? we must leave this practice behind. that's why i'm a co-sponsor of the underlying legislation, to prohibit elective abortions in the united states past 20 weeks . the pain-capable unborn child protection act is a commonsense reform to our american principles of protecting life as the most fundamental constitutional right. . with that mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempor the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is co f t minutes. mrs. maloney: i rise in opposition to this rule. after all the talk by our republican friends about focusing their efforts on jobs and growing the economy, so far
their rhetoric does not match their record. last week we took up a pipeline bill that according to the state department would only create 34 jobs, and the bill that we have on the pipeline today probably won't create one single job. but what it will do, it will make it easier to damage the environment. and the majority has also introduced six anti-choice bills in the past seven days. and what all these bills have in common is that they will not create one single american job. instead of a jobs agenda the majority seems bound and determined to attack women's rights, to take away a woman's constitutional right to make for herself the most private and personal and intimate decisions. so now we're taking up this bill, h.r. 34 which is based on the insulting belief that women are incapable and
unprepared to make decisions about their own bodies and their own health care. 42 years ago this week the supreme court in roe v. wade made it clear that a woman has a constitutional right to decide for herself these private issues concerning her own health and well-being. this is not only insulting to the women of this country it is just another pointless exercise in political posturing. it will never become law. it is a waste of congress' time. what we should be doing instead is focusing on any idea or measure that can help create greater economic opportunity for all americans. the president pointed out last night that our economy is on the rise. under his leadership, we are experiencing the strongest private sector job growth we've had in 17 years. over 11 million new jobs.
so let's not squander this opportunity, let's work together to create real jobs, not political posturing for the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusese. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you mr. speaker. thankfully the american people recognize that we are speaking about protecting vulnerable lives here. a march 2013, poll conducted by the polling company, found that 64% of the public supports a law like the pain-capable unborn child protection act prohibiting an abortion after 20 weeks, when an unborn baby can feel pain, unless the life of the mother is in danger. supporters include 47% of those that are pro-choice. they believe that abortion should not be permitted after
the point where substantial medical evidence says that unborn child can feel pain. that finding was not an unusual outlier. it's represented of the true belief of the american people. according to a 2013 gallup poll, 64% of americans support prohibiting second trimuster abortions and 80% support prohibiting third trimester abortions. even the huffington post found in 2013 that 59% of americans support limiting abortions after 20 weeks. let no one believe our concern is only for the child. a study in the obstetrics and gynecology journal found that a woman seeking an abortion after 20 weeks after just take is 20 times more likely to die from an abortion than she was in an abortion in the first trimuster. she's 91 times more likely to die.
abortion is a danger to both lives, the mother and the child. mr. speaker, congress cannot idly -- sit idly by while this grotesque and brutal procedure which rips the tiny baby apart limb from limb in the womb and threatens the life of the mother is performed in this country. this is why it's necessary for congress to pass h.r. 36 and protect the lives of these unborn children from excruciating pain. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gewanronoh rona reserveshealf r time. the gentlemaom mchtssogze cger mr. speaker, i'm proud to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from tennessee someone who believes in protecting women's rights, mr. cohen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from teese recoiz 1 minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. mcgovern. pain is a subter huge. this is not about pain to the fetus. it is about outlawing abortion
and repealing roe v. wade. they set out conditions of viability and viability is 22 to 24 weeks. when they couldn't get past that in the court, they knew they couldn't so they went to a new class when the baby could feel pain. they found a doctor that said they assume they could feel pain. an argument to try to repeal row v. wade and to not give the women of this country the opportunity to exercise choice on their own lives and when they produce children. this has been the law in this country since 1973. i consider it the right law. when i was in law school when the supreme court brought down roe v. wade, it was progress and we continue to march forward, but the other side wants to stop progress. if they could outlaw all abortions they would do it, and this is the first step toward doing it. they don't provide for the life of the mother in the bill. they don't provide for exceptions for rape and incest, and they didn't allow any amendments because they knew if they had amendments they would
carry and the full rape and incest exceptions which are in the law today, would be put on this bill and that would be difficult for them to swallow. this is a sham on pain. this is an attempt to take women's rights away and to repeal roe v. wade. i would ask that when the bill comes up that we vote no and vote women first and progress. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. thlemafr massachusts reserves. the gentlewoman from noh caros recognid. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i'll reserve at this time until the gentleman from massachusetts is ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman fromor cola ress. e ntmafr massatsco. mrveah mr. speaker sadly we have seen all too well how money has polluted our politics and is undermining our democracy. and so i'm going to urge people to vote against the previous question and if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule to allow for consideration of a sensible constitutional amendment, h.j.res. 22, a measure that i have sponsored with my friends, ted deutch of florida, donna
edwards of maryland, and john sarbanes of maryland, to overturn these decisions and make clear that congress and states have the authority to regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money to influence elections. to discuss this proposal, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recnir o minutes. mr. deutch: i thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank my friend from massachusetts, a leader in the fight to get money out of politics. last night in his state of the union address, president obama called on republicans and democrats in congress to embrace a better politics, where we spend less time fundraising an spewing sound bites and more time debating issues in good faith to find common ground a better politics. that's something all americans want to see and there is no better way to restore their faith in congress than by
getting big money out of politics. today, my friends is the five-year anniversary of the supreme court's 5-4 ruling in citizens united v.f.c.s. which says that corporations and megamillionaires a first amendment right to buy unlimited influence in our elections. the result of citizens united has been elections dominated by super-pac's and unaccountable outside groups backed by a small group of the wealthiest americans. indeed, during the 2012 presidential election psychal, 93% of super-pac funding came from over ,000 donors amounting to less than .01% of the american population. likewise, the 2014 mid term
election cycle was the most expensive in history with record-breaking spending by outside groups. that's why today i ask the majority to join me and more than 80 of my colleagues in support of h.j.res. 22 the democracy for all amendment. this amendment would restore what the supreme court took away in citizens united the right of congress and the states to pass laws limiting the influence of big money in our elections. seniors on social security don't have millions to funnel into superpacs. mr. mcgovern: i yield 130ekds. mr. deutch: and low-income children. the sad truth is that for most americans, their influence in washington has shrunk the time that the supreme court has allowed special interests to set the agendas. let's build a better politics by bringing h.j.res. 22, the democracy for all amendment, up
for a vote today. together we can ensure that every american's voice, once again, is heard in america's democracy. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlen om massachettses the gentlewoman from north ros recognized. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ntharin resve the ntmafr massaussi mcg mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland mr. sarbanes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is gnorwoines. mr. sarbanes: i thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i urge a no vote on ordering the previous question so that we can consider the constitutional amendment the democracy for all amendment, that would rein in the excesses that have been unleashed by big money on our political system. that occurred five years ago in the citizens united decision. we have an opportunity acting on behalf of millions of americans who feel their voices are drowned out, to push back
on the influence of big money in this town and on this chamber. it seems, mr. speaker, that every week we get another example of how big money is influencing policy here in washington. last week it was the influence of wall street leaning on the institution to pass legislation that would get them out from reasonable regulation. this week it's the energy industry leaning on the institution with respect to this keystone bill that we're going to see. example after example of how big money has undo influence here in washington. it's time we fought on behalf of the american people and made sure that their voices are the ones being heard not the voice and the megaphone of big money. let's vote against ordering the previous question. let's consider the amendment to the constitution that would allow us to push back on the undo influence of big money here in washington. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlemm massachutts reserves. the gentlewoman from north
carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: mr. speaker i'd inquire as to whether the gentleman from massachusetts is prepared to close. mr. mcgovern: yes, i am. ms. foxx: then i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina resers. the gentlen mahu iregned. govep mr. mcgovern: how much time do i have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has three minutes. mr. mcgovern: i'll insert the text of the amendment if we defeat the previous question in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the prequeff. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me just recap tore my colleagues here. first of all, vote no on this rule. this continues a trend that has nothing but contempt for regular order. these bills will no hearings in this congress, there was no markup and now they're brought to the floor with no amendments. two closed rules. notwithstanding the pledge of the speaker for more open and transparent process, people who have other ideas on ways to
improve or change these bills are denied that opportunity. and i would say with all due respect to my colleague from north carolina we can't use the excuse that we got to keep the government running. we're in the beginning of the session. we're not doing much of anything. and clearly the bills we're debating in their current form will be vetoed anyway. secondly, i would urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule because of the bills that are being brought up. the -- this bill that is clearly an attack on women's health and reproductive rights, which does not belong on this floor, and the other bill is a bill that basically allows there to be a process for pipelines to be approved without necessarily going through all the proper oversight. and i'm going to urge you to vote against the previous question so we can bring up this bill that i talked about earlier on campaign finance reform.
look, the legislative agenda in this congress is about rewarding the highest donors. i think to any objective observer when you see what's coming up on the floor, including this pipeline bill it's not in the interest of the american people. we're not out there trying to protect their safety and well-being. it's a big kiss to the energy industry. . and i would argue that the reason why thank bills like that are -- why bills like that or some of the tax bills that come to the floor, they're brought to the floor because those people who represent those wealthy interests have the most sway in this congress. they are the biggest donors to political parties, they are the biggest donors to members of congress. and while that is happening every day here average people who can't contribute tens of thousands of dollars to political parties, who can't contribute millions of dollars, are increasingly becoming marginalized. the issues that matter most to working people, those
struggling in the middle class, those struggling to get in the middle class, we don't even get a chance to debate those issues on the house floor. so i say -- and i say to my republican friends i've had many conversations with you over the years about how you hate raising money as much as i hate raising money. too much of our attention in this congress, whether you're a democrat or republican, is about raising money for the next election. and it's getting worse and worse every election cycle. it's time to do something about that. it's time to give congress the authority to regulate or put a cap on how much campaigns cost. i mean, we're going to spend billions of dollars in the next presidential election. it is obscene. with all the problems that we have in this country, you know, we ought to be spending more time debating those problems and not worrying about raising money. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question so that we can bring up this commonsense
campaign finance proposal and i urge a no vote on the rule and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachuses' mexped. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you mr. speaker. as i said at the opening of this debate this rule will provide for consideration of h.r. 161, the natural gas pipeline permitting reform act. that legislation, which passed the house on a bipartisan basis last congress, will reduce red tape and he sure americans in all parts of the country -- ensure americans in all parts of the country will be able to benefit from the energy revolution that's occurred on our nation's private lands. it's the coldest season of the year, it's my strong hope that we'll be able to enact this legislation soon to ensure that in winters to come residents of the northeast and other high-cost areas of the country are able to heat their homes affordably. before we consider our budgets or the foolishness of red tape,
though, we must return to our founding principles. we must remember that life is the most fundamental of all rights. it is sacred and god given. even the president said in last night's speech, quote i want our actions to tell every child in every neighborhood, your life matters. and we are as committed to improving your life chances as we are for our own kids end quote. mr. speaker, millions of babies have been robbed of that right in this, the freest country in the world. that is a tragedy beyond words and the betrayal of what we as a nation stand for.
before liberty equality, free speech, freedom of conscience, the pursuit of happiness and justice for all, there has to be life. and yet for millions of aborted infants life is exactly what they have been denied. and an affront to life for some is an affront to life for every one of us. one day we hope it will be different. we hope life will cease to be valued on a sliding scale. we hope the era of elective abortions ushered in by the unelected court, will be closed and collectively deemed one of the darkest chapters in american history. but until that day it remains a solemn duty to stand up for life. regardless of the length of this journey, we'll continue to speak for those who cannot. and we will continue to pray to
the one who can change the hearts of those in desperation and those in power who equally hold the lives of the innocent in their hands. may we in love defend the unborn. may we in humility confront this national sin. and may we mourn what abortion reveals about the conscience of our nation. therefore i urge my colleagues to vote for life by voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the qst oorri t previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those oppos, . in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. gornonhai k r a recorded vote -- the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested.
all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and y ri a raistdi until und. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and na e ordered. members will record their votes by electronic devi. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. 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 238. the nays are 19 of 82. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: on that i request for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this question will be postponed -- members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning instite, i iopion th united stehoe reestave anyf os-ctied covef e us pgsorolic o erurseisxpssly hitebyhe.oe seates
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlen oucmr. whitfield, seek recognition? mr. whitfield: pursuant to house resolution 38, i call up h.r. 161 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 161, a bill to provide for the timely consideration of all licenses permits and approvals required under federal law with respect to the citing, construction expansion or operation of any natural gas pipeline projects. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 38, theill is considered as read. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentky. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all
members may have five legislative dayso vi a extthmas and to include extraneous material on h.r. 161. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. whd: a athime i'd like to yield to the gentleman from michigan, the chairman of the full energy and commerce committee, mr. upton, three minutes. two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is reedor t mes. mr. upton: well, thank you, mr. speaker. you know, when it comes to natural gas production, we are number one. what was once a pipe dream is now a global reality thanks to american ingenuity and technology. an impressive accomplishment, especially considering where we were only a decade ago, fearful to be running out of supplies. with this new wealth of natural gas folks in michigan and across the country should no
longer worry about access to affordable energy, but budget-busting power bills are still hitting too many americans. "the new york times" recently reported that customers in new england could expect electricity rates spike close to 40% higher this winter. why? well, we may have fixed our supply problems but now we have a serious distribution problem. our archaic energy infrastructure and outdated regulatory system is blocking american consumers from reaping the benefits of our energy abundance. we have the gas but we don't have the pipelines to get cheap energy directly to families and businesses that need it most. this legislation seeks to fix the problem. inserting accountability into the permitting process for natural gas pipelines and establishing firm deadlines for agency reviews. it does not exempt any environmental laws. it just makes sure that pipeline projects get sited and
built without unnecessary delay. last night the president here made the case for more federal funding of transportation infrastructure projects like roads and bridges as one way to create the jobs while modernizing our economy. but the energy infrastructure project unleashed by this pipeline bill are every bit as necessary. with all of the economic benefits and the best part is since it will be paid for by the private sector it won't cost taxpayers a dime. we voted on this legislation last congress, and it passed the house with overwhelming bipartisan support. with the president's comments last night about wanting to work with congress, i hope that the president can join us in supporting this bipartisan commonsense energy job solution. now that we're the leader in energy production, there is no reason that america shouldn't be number one in energy affordable use as well. i yield back the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves the balancef his time. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey mr. pallone. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this bill, and i would yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for stihe may consume. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i listen to my colleague, the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, where he said that the likelihood is that we are going to have more and more pipelines constructed, pipelines that have to go through the ferc process, and that is certainly true. but all the more reason why we shouldn't be voting or supporting this bill. i have to say, i am talking not just in general in the abstract, but from personal experience in my district a few years ago when i was a congressman in edson new jersey. we had a natural gas pipeline explosion, and fortunately no one was killed or seriously
injured, but a whole apartment complex was wiped out not just one building but a series of them and it was a real danger of loss of life. it scares me, mr. speaker, in all honesty to think that we would want to change the process whereby ferc has the opportunity to look at the safety of these pipelines when proposed for permitting and somehow short-circuit that process. because of my own experience in my congressional district in edison, new jersey duringham woods was the name of the -- durham woods was the name of the complex. a lot of them are in densely populated areas, so it's a major concern that ferc has to look at when reviewing these pipelines and deciding whether to issue a permit, it's not that, you know, they're in areas where there are no people. they're often in densely
populated areas like in my case of new jersey. so in addition i would say that, you know, this bill is unnecessary. we have the nonpartisan government accounting office that concluded that the ferc pipeline permitting process is predictable and consistent and gets pipelines built. in fact, over 90% are approved or at least decided within the 12-month cycle, limitation that this bill is proposing. the pipeline companies actually testified before the g.a.o. that the process for permitting through ferc, quote, is generally very good and that the sector enjoys a favorable, legal and regulatory framework for the approval of new infrastructure. so if the process is fine, why are we now trying to move ahead and endanger safety by coming up with limitations on the process that actually is very good? i would also say that if you
have a 12-month limit, which is what this bill proposed on ferc's ability to issue a permit, it's very possible that the process of permitting could be slowed down because if ferc decides they don't have enough time within 12 months to decide whether a pipeline should be built they may decide not to grant the permit and deny it for near they haven't had enough time to deal with it over the 12 months. so i think it's not only unnecessary but it may actually be counterproductive what -- what the sponsors are trying to accomplish. i'd also point out, again we're wasting our time because the president has issued a statement of administration policy said that -- saying that if h.r. 161 were to reach his desk that he would -- that he would actually veto it. i'm not going to get into all of the specifics why because i think they are the same reasons why i'm mentioning them myself.
let me say what happens. when faced with this 12-month deadline, it's not only of ferc but also other agencies that deal with the clean air act or the clean water act or the endangered species act. other agencies that have the authority to review this and permit this under the bill would actually only have three months, 90 days. after the 12-month period ends with ferc, then there's a 90-day period for them to act if they don't act within the 90 days then ferc is allowed to issue a permit and say that those other regulatory concerns are met. so now you're going to have ferc not only limit in its 12-month review but then also issuing permits under the clean air act, clean water act and these other governmental regulations that it has nothing to do with. essentially you're saying the
other agencies don't have any role because ferc has to approve those permits as well after the 90 days which ferc normally don't deal with these other issues. now the other thing that is clear. a lot are concerned on both sides of the aisle about the eminent domain issue. if the permit is approved by ferc, then that means that the company that's building the pipeline has the right to use eminent domain for the land where the pipeline is going to go through. there is a lot of krn where eminent domain should be used in those circumstances sikh particularly if the permit process has been short -- has been short-circuited. i think sometimes my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't understand that these permits are very detailed documents. they include technology operating requirements, conditions to protect the environment. ferc doesn't have the expertise or the resources to issue the permits for these other --
these other statutes like the clean air act and the endangered species act. so i'm saying i think this legislation, from a practical point of view, is entirely unworkable. it just doesn't work. it doesn't work. the g.a.o. has said that process that we have now is fine, and for those of us who've had these accidents where we had the explosions and the danger, the last thing that we want is these pipelines going through densely populated areas that haven't had the proper review to protect the safety and the health of our residents. and for all these reasons, i would urge that my colleagues oppose this legislation, and i would reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey rerv ban of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo, who is the author of h.r. 161.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo, is recognized for three minutes. mr. pompeo: i thank the gentleman for yielding to me. i rise in support of h.r. 161. we are 10 of thousands of miles of pipeline capacity short of the necessary pipelines to carry natural gas to consumers who need it and businesses who demand it today in america. you don't have to take my word for it. prices will tell you. the gentleman from new jersey just said he opposes this bill. allow him to explain to his constituents why they pay six or seven or eight times as much for natural gas than someone in the midwest where there is adequate pipeline. it's unnecessary it's unconscionable and america has the ability to provide natural gas to people so they can heat their homes, so they can cool their homes in the summertime. we no longer live in a world
with energy scarcity here in america. we have an opportunity to get this product from where it's been found to the consumers and businesses that are demanding it. so the other side may tell you we don't have a problem, but i tell you, as you talk to your constituents, as one mr. speaker, who does this all the time, they're saying i'm paying too much for my product this is a solution that will work. we don't make in this legislation a single change to the clean water act. not one change to the clean air act. not a single change to any legislation that has to due with pipeline safety. not one. all of those laws remain in effect. all we ask the government to do is its job. we give them a timeline. we give them ample time. and if 12 months were not enough, i'm happy to give them 13. we'll change the legislation. in fact, the opposition isn't because this is being rushed but in fact this will speed the process. this is why folks are opposed to it. they know it will produce the
gas in a way that's safe and reasonable and have outcomes yet, they want to keep these products in the ground. this is the opposition to the bill. for those that wants it to go to consumers for places it needs to go, i urge you to support this. you know, frankly, when you read about the articles of the challenges of pipeline capacity in america, the place it impacts the most isn't the place from which i hail. it's not from kansas. it isn't the midwest. it's in fact the densely populated of the northeast. they are the place that need this energy the most and the soonest and the safest and we can get it for them. and i urge those who live in those places to talk to their constituents, to do the work to make sure they understand what h.r. 161 can accomplish for the people in the areas that they represent. you know this administration has taken a lot of efforts to reduce the capacity for cool to provide energy for businesses, consumers. i regret that. and doing my best to push back in every place as we can as i know our chairman is as well,
but as coal firepower plants become more difficult to build, this legislation is aimed at directly to making sure we don't have shortages and outages and can t.s.a. row fees in energy production and energy delivery that we cannot afford. mr. chairman, i urge all my colleagues to support h.r. 161 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the timofheenem fm kansas has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek ti? . the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. tsongas, is recognized for three mnts. ms. tsongas: thank you to my colleague for yielding. i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 161, the so-called natural gas pipeline permitting reform act. my home state of massachusetts like many areas arne the country face a serious energy challenge. we need -- around the country, face serious energy challenge. we need long-term planning to
lower energy prices and decrease reliability. this could help address some of new england nueling's energy challenges, including energy prices which have historically been above the national average. however, this legislation would move us in the wrong direction. this bill would force ferc to rush decisionmaking, including environmental reviews and assessments of the need for natural gas while also hobbling decisions regarding the appropriate size of the appropriate pipeline. it would turn ferc into a superpermitting agency, in an authority that ferc neither wants nor has the expertise to carry out. in my home district, we are currently navigating the ferc process that this bill purports to improve. the company is proposing to build a new 250-mile natural gas pipeline that crosses three states, including seven communities that i represent. i have heard from hundreds of my constituents expressing their
concerns with this project. construction of the pipeline could jeopardize o local wildlife and will impact both state and federally designated conservation land as well as massachusetts farmland. thanks to extensive public review and input, the pipeline route has already been adjusted to minimize some of the environmental impacts, but there are still many outstanding concerns that deserve careful scrutiny. the proposed route still passes through local farmland marks, wildlife management areas, wetlands, near schools and across drinking water supplies. my constituents have been grateful for a process that has given them the time to provide input. this bill would short circuit that process and shortchange my constituents' right to be heard. i proposed an amendment to this legislation with my colleague, mr. mcgovern, that would exempt any pipeline from the arbitrary timeline established in the bill if the proposed route crosses
federal, state, or local land designated for conservation or recreation. however, the majority blocked this simple amendment from coming to the floor and receiving an up or down vote. in massachusetts, we have a long-standing history of preserving natural habitat and protecting open spaces for the public benefit. and we have invested significant public resources towards these goals. members should have been given the opportunities to vote on whether or not we should allow for a thorough review process to protect state investments. on behalf of my constituents i ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york -- one minute to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. hanna. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york, mr. hanna is recognized for one minute. mr. hanna: thank you.
i rise in support of the natural gas pipeline permitting reform act. increased production of american natural gas has led to lower prices and more demand for this energy source all across the nation. that's especially true in cold energy dependent regions like upstate new york and the northeast. we need new infrastructure, specifically pipelines, to safely transport fuels to markets where they are needed. unfortunately, the government accountability office reported that an average processing time for interstate natural gas pipeline projects was 558 days. this bill would expedite the government's review process for pipeline applications to make sure that we are doing all we can to build infrastructure in a timely and responsible manner. more access to affordable american natural gas would help fuel farms, heat homes and power small businesses in upstate new york and throughout this country. building pipelines will create good-paying jobs, as well as
boost revenues and develop -- and development in communities across the nation. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: yes, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro t: gentlema rze mr. lnome of my republican colleagues just suggested that this bill would not waive any environmental requirements. for instance, yesterday at the rules committee the sponsor of the legislation indicated that h.r. 161 did not waive or alter any applicable environmental requirements under the clean air act or nepa. while it's true this legislation did not actually amend any provisions of the clean air act or other environmental statutes the pill would require automat -- bill would require automatic issuance of a permit under statutes like the clean air act if the responsible agency such as the e.p.a. has failed to act within the 90 days. this is the 90 days beyond the one year that i mentioned
before. so basically that makes ferc the agency that would issue the clean air act permit. under this bill, ferc would decide how to create the b.l.m. or clean water act discharge permit. as a result, the legislation would effectively override the permitting decisions of agencies like e.p.a. or d.o.i. and turn ferc into the superpermitting agency. i just want to point out while it's true the text of the actual clean air act might remain unchanged under this bill, the effect of the bill would be that the clean air act permits would be automatically issued by ferc if e.p.a. fails to act within 90 days. that's a major and substantive change from the way these laws work and effect amounts to waiver of the environmental regulation for all practical purposes, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey rerv ban ohis time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: may i ask how much time we have remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 24
minutes remaining. the gentleman from new jersey has 19 minutes remaining. mr. whitfield: i would yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for such time he may consume. mr. whitfield: i would like to clarify that h.r. 161 is certainly not in a drastic piece of legislation. the energy policy act of 2005 designated the federal energy regulatory commission as the lead agency charged with coordinating and reviewing natural gas pipeline project applications. therefore, ferc conducts the environmental review of each project as required under the national environmental policy act nepa. and is given authority to set tedlines for other agencies -- deadlines for other agencies to issue an approval or denial of an associated permit. so when these applications are
filed at ferc the application also is given to other agencies that may have jurisdiction over the clean water act, maybe like the corps of engineers, the clean air act, e.p.a. perhaps, or endangered species. so it's not like that we are just -- they just have 90 days to look at this. they get the application same time ferc does. the problem that ferc has had and they have, both democrat and republican commissioners come to congress and say that they need more authority over these other agencies. so this bill does precisely that. it gives the agency once ferc has made a final determination and completed its process, it gives the other agencies another 90 days even though they have been working on it for a year in advance of that, another 90 days to complete it, and if they want another 30 days then they can
do that as well. i would just say that this is not rushing the process. it's simply completing the 2005 energy policy act that gives ferc authority, we give them authority, but don't give them any enforcement. so this is precisely what this legislation does. i might also add that having deadlines for agencies to act when doing environmental reviews or issuing permits is not really that strange or unique of an idea. canada, australia, most european union nations have deadlines for their environmental regulatory agencies to act. any person that's doing any kind of business in america knows the bureaucracy that we all run into.
it's easy to criticize bure he creas. we know -- burecreases, we know they are dedicated citizens trying to protect the environment and american people and we commend them for doing that. we also know that they frequently let things slide. it's easy to get -- to lose the process. and we hear common complaints nonstop about delay, delay, delay. and we know from hearings on this, this bill has already passed the house once, we know from hearings that the northeastern united states are really vulnerable to not having sufficient natural gas to meet their needs. they are closing nuclear power plants. the president is making sure you can't build a new coal plant in america. existing coal plants, many of them will be going out of business because of extreme regulations of this climate driven administration. so these communities -- we have
heard testimony about the escalating prices of electricity for people. this is designed to provide the infrastructure to get the natural gas where it needs to be. and the northeast is one of those areas. so that's really what this bill is about. it's about giving ferc some real authority setting in statute that these agencies must act within a certain amount of time. with that i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves e lae h time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i don't -- i really don't understand -- i respect my colleague from kentucky a great deal, but he seems to be arguing that we need the deadlines in this bill to hold federal agencies accountable and make sure they don't just somehow sit on the applications.
but as i have already noted, since 2009, ferc has completed action on 91% of natural gas pipeline applications within 12 months. so a 12-month deadline isn't needed for more than 0% of the applicants. so my colleagues have asked what's the problem with holding the remaining % to a 1-month deadline. this -- 12-month deadline. this problem is it becomes a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to consider a wide range of applications ferc has to review. some of the applications for new projects, again a small number, span hundreds of miles across waterways and wetlands, pass-through neighborhoods and habitats of threatened wildlife. questions of eminent domain need to be considered. in these cases there can be unresolved safety environmental, and legal issues at the local or state level. again as i said, the president has said that he would veto this bill. the statement of administration policy they specifically say, and i quote, the small
percentage of decisions that have taken longer than one year involve complex proposals that merit additional review and consideration. so, mr. speaker, if there is a complex project, or there's some unaddressed risk to safety or the environment, we need to allow ferc or other federal agencies the ensure the pipeline is safe so we don't have an accident like what occurred in edison, new jersey, in my district. the last thing anyone needs, including the pipeline owner, is the pipeline explosion or other dangerous pipeline malfunction. and these things have occurred. i witnessed it myself in my district. i'm just saying don't put a hard deadline on the most complex projects that raise the possibility that ferc will be forced to approve a pipeline that is not safe or to reject an application solely because the commission lacks sufficient time for an adequate review. that will hinder rather than help us get more natural gas where it needs to go. my colleague also mentioned the
issue about the northeast electricity supply or prices. i just wanted to raise -- address that concern. new england is using more natural gas to generate electricity and more natural gas for heating homes than in the past. on the coldest winter days when natural gas is needed there is more demand. but this bill doesn't do anything to solve that problem. the problem in new england isn't caused by pipeline applications that take too long to get approved by ferc, the problem is that the pipeline companies aren't even submitting the applications because they haven't figured out who is going to pay for these new pipelines. the pipeline companies haven't been satisfied. there's sufficient year-round demand to justify and finance the pipelines. that's an issue that ferc is looking at and has been holding stakeholder conferences about. but this has nothing to do with mr. pompeo's bill. cutting corners on the permitting process isn't going to help additional pipeline
capacity built for the northeast. i don't think we ought to be blaming the government for every problem, which is what i hear my colleagues on the republican side doing. the reality is that ferc and the government didn't create this problem. it's a problem of the economics and the faster we understand that, the faster we can try to find a solution. but let's not act as if ferc's inability to act is the problem. that is not the case. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves the balance the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: when we had hearings on this bill, the natural pipeline industry estimated by the year 2035 an estimated $8 billion each year would be spent to keep pace with the anticipated need for more pipeline infrastructure. and the gentleman from new
jersey, mr. pallone, is absolutely correct, that congress can't make these decisions. i mean, private companies have to make the decision if they're going to invest the dollars to build these pipelines. but they have talked to us. the ferc commissioners have talked to us about the fact that some of these agencies are just delaying for no apparent reason. and as i said earlier, when the application is filed at ferc, the other agencies receive those applications and they have the same amount of time to work on it. so this legislation simply sets some guidelines for these federal agencies so that when ferc completes its chore, and it is the quarterback in the decision of approving these pipelines, that these agencies must also step up to the plate. and so this legislation is not radical in any way.
it's certainly not a rushing -- rush the process. it's not doing that, but it's simply pursuant to the 205 energy policy act, making it a more efficient speedy process while at the same time protecting the environment and the best interest of the american people. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserv ban ohis time. does the gentleman from new jersey have additional speakers? mr. pallone: i don't, mr. speaker, but i'd like to yield myself such time at this point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pae: jt nt to -- i'm not going to read the whole thing mr. speaker, but i just did want to read some part of the record of administration policy. it says the administration recognizes the need for additional energy infrastructure and supports the
timely consideration of project applications. the administration, however, strongly opposes the bill because it would allow the automatic approval of natural gas pipeline projects if the ferc or other federal agencies do not issue the required permits, license or approval within rigid unworkable time frames. h.r. 161 would create conflicts with existing statutory and regulatory requirements and practices, preclude opportunities for engaging the public and potentially impact the communities, thereby causing confusion and the risk of increased litigation. the bill's requirements could force agencies to make decisions base on incomplete information or information that may not be available. including potential environmental and community impacts of the proposed pipeline within the stringent deadlines and to deny applications that otherwise would have been approved but for lack of sufficient review time. so for these reasons, the bill may actually delay projects or lead to more project denials, undermining the intent of the legislation. i stress to my colleagues on the other side again, we
understand there's a need for more pipelines, and we understand that these pipelines have to be approved in a timely fashion. but there's no reason to believe that's not happening now. and the danger here is that in the case where these do have to have a more intensive review because of safety or health or environmental concerns, that we may actually do the opposite. either they're going to be denied because the agencies don't have enough time or, god forbid they get approved when they shouldn't be. so again, i just don't quite understand what this is all about. it seemed like the republicans have a bill that they think is going to accomplish the goal but won't and has the danger of really risking the safety of residents, and i've already witnessed that in the case of a pipeline explosion in my district. i'd reserve the balance of my time. i don't have additional speakers. i don't know if the gentleman wants to close at this point.
mr. whitfield: i have no other speakers either, and i'd be happy to close once the gentleman finishes. mr. pallone: all right. if i could yield myself such time to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey recognized. mr. palle:ha y mr. speaker. i just think that what the republicans are doing is blaming ferc and trying to come up with a solution -- with a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. but in the process of all that, they're going to jeopardize the possibility of the fact that some of these pipelines might be approved without enough safety or environmental or health concerns. and it seems to me that it makes no sense at all to put ferc in the position of deciding issues on -- with regard to statutes like the clean water act, endangered species act that really have
nothing to do with. we considered this bill the last congress, mr. speaker, and ferc made it clear it was not necessary or helpful and the administration threatened to veto the bill. nothing has changed. the administration has again threatened to veto this bill. it's very early in this new congress. i remain committed to developing sound energy policy with my republican colleagues, if they want to have some hearings on this bill and go through the regular order, the committee process, that's fine. there will be more opportunity to review it. but i don't think this bill may help anyone and will hurt a lot of people including those that want to build the pipeline. instead of spending time debating a bill that will not become law, i hope we can have serious discussion about sound and sustainable energy policy. at this time i'd urge my colleagues to vote against this particular piece of legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gtnronee yieldba t balan os time.
the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: in sumation, i'd just urge the passage of h.r. 161. i would note once again that during the hearings on this legislation commissioners, both republican and democrat, at ferc said more accountability was needed for agencies that issue permits necessary to construct natural gas pipelines. now, many people have raised the issue that president has said he would veto this bill. and you know that's his job, that's his responsibility, but that's our type of government that we have. we have a legislative branch. we have an executive branch, and we have a judiciary. and the legislative branch's pocket is to pass legislation that it deems necessary. and if the president wants to veto it, let him veto it and give his reasons why, and then the american people can listen to both sides and decide what
they think is the right direction to go. i would just stress once more that the energy information agency data from last year's winter cold snap during the month of january showed that residential natural gas prices in pennsylvania were 14% above the national average, new jersey 18% higher, new york 24% higher, vermont 60% higher. and one of the reasons given is the lack of infrastructure to get natural gas pipelines to where the natural -- natural gas where it needs to go in the northeast. so this is a commonsense bill that is being presented to help solve this problem of energy needs in america and if we're going to be competitive in the global marketplace, we need yes, we need good, low cost
residential electricity prices but we also need low cost manufacturing and heavy industry electricity prices in order to compete in a global marketplace. that's what h.r. 161 is all about, and i'd urge the members to support this legislation that was drafted by mr. pompeo of kansas. and i'd yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields bbancof his time. all time for debate on h.r. 161 has now expired. pursuant to house resolution 38 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 provide for the timely consideration of all licenses, permits and approvals required under federal law with respect to the siting, construction, expansion or operation of any natural gas
pipeline projects. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. pallone: i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. pallone of new jersey moves to recommit the bill h.r. 161 to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment -- at the end of the bill add the following -- mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i reserve a point of order on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is reserved. the clerk will continue. the clerk: section 3 pipeline owner responsibility in the event of an explosion. the provisions of this act shall not take effect unless the federal energy regulatory commission in consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies determined that in the implementation of this act one, taxpayers will not be held liable for any repair or environmental cleanup from a
natural gas pipeline explosion and, two pipeline owners will bear full responsibility for damages in any community resulting from a natural gas pipeline explosion including for loss of life. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as i mentioned before during the general debate, i and my constituents witnessed and went through a few years ago when i was in congress a natural gas pipeline explosion. it was devastating to the community. we had many people that -- who lost their homes. it was actually several apartment buildings, and even to this day the memory of that is very much ingrained in the residents of during ham woods, the largest -- durham woods, the largest municipality i
represent in edison, new jersey. in this motion to recommit, the provisions of this act will not take effect unless the ferc determines the taxpayers will not be held liable for any repair or environmental compleenup from a gas pipeline -- cleanup from a gas pipeline explosion and the pipeline owners will bear full responsibility of the damages resulting from a natural gas pipeline explosion, including the loss of life. it seems to me that that's the minimum that we should expect when there is such an explosion and believe me, at the time when that explosion occurred in durham woods in my district there were many instances where we had to have environmental cleanups and where the community was exposed to tremendous damages. so it seems to me that under the circumstances that this makes -- this motion to recommit makes perfect sense.
and mr. speaker, let me point out, there have been many pipeline explosions. i mean, i'm not going to go through the entire list. in fact, the one in my district is one of the ones that's mentioned here. but beginning just in the last 10 or 15 years, there have been numerous explosions. we're not talking about something that doesn't happen. at this time i'd like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from california, mr.ed aer -- mr. aguilar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. the gentleman from new jersey has to remain hisee mr. aguilar: thank you mr. speaker. natural gas pipeline explosions do happen. run exploded in mississippi last week. last year pipelines exploded in minnesota, nebraska north dakota and kentucky. in 2013, a pipeline south of dallas exploded. reports described the massive explosion, and i quote, shooting flames high in the air and prompting evacuations from
nearby homes and a school district with black smoke visible for some 20 miles. and in 2010, a natural gas pipeline exploded in san bernardino california, in my home state of california, claws 'causing an explosion that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes. even aztec nothing has improved pipelines have failed. we should make clear that this legislation in the event of a catastrophic failure of a pipeline, the taxpayers are not liable for hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in damages these explosions can cause. companies are responsible for the safety and reliability of their pipelines, and we should ensure that they're also liable for the damages caused by those pipelines. last year when this very bill came to the committee on energy and commerce, the president of the pipeline safety trust testified this group is a national independent nonprofit watchdog organization, created using funds from a settlement
reached in the aftermath of a pipeline explosion. in washington state that killed three people. the president testified that rushed -- i quote, rushed or worst, incomplete reviews resulting in automatic approvals pose a threat to public safety. to be clear, this is not an organization that opposes new pipelines. they only focus on pipeline safety and they have a serious problem with this bill and the effect on public safety for new pipelines. . the president pointed out that this treats a pipeline across the desert, where it could pose a threat to the life or the property of citizens living nearby. mr. speaker, pipelines can fail. and those failures can have disastrous effects on communities and the environment. this commonsense amendment would protect taxpayers from ever having to pay the cost of pipeline explosions.
i hope that we never see another natural gas line explosion, but that would require the history not repeat itself. i urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit and to vote against the underlying bill because of the danger it poses to the communities and the environment. thank you mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. so the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for the remainder of his time. mr. palazzo: mr. speaker, once -- mr. pallone: mr. speaker, once again i listened to my colleague from california talk about the dangers from pipelines. these dangers are real. we've had many explosions over the years, including in my own district. so i think that this bill really puts at risk the possibility of another pipeline explosion. it doesn't provide for enough safety or environmental review. i urge that the members support the motion to recommit because at a minimum it would provide some liability and some way to
effectuate a cleanup and pay for the damages that come from an explosion that might take place in the future. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> mr. speaker, i withdraw my point of order and claim the time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the reservation is withdrawn and the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from new jersey and the speaker from new york raising this safety issue. mr. whitfield: because obviously safety is of a paramount importance to all of us and that's why we do have the pipeline and hazardous materials safety administration that has the responsibility to make sure that these pipelines operate in as safe of a manner as possible. we also recognize that we never get to a point where it is absolutely safe. but h.r. 161 really does not
have anything to do with phmsa. our committee does have just diction over phmsa. we've had a lot of hearings on it. we're going to continue to have hearings because we want to maximize pipeline safety. but h.r. 161, which this motion to recommit is addressing this legislation is not about anything except perfecting the 2005 energy policy act. it gave ferc the quarterbacking authority for approving these natural gas pipelines. from thes a pact of the impact on -- from the aspect of the impact on clean water, clean air and species. so this legislation simply gives ferc the authority that many of its commissioners ask for and that is that they have some authority to convince these agencies to start looking at the impacts of the applications earlier in the process rather than at the end.
so even after the one-year process is over, they still have 90 days, they may ask for another 30 days. and so with that, because of that reason that this is are this is not a pipeline safety bill -- that this is not a pipeline safety bill, it's a process bill, i would respectfully request that we defeat this motion to recommit and i look forward to working with the gentleman from new jersey and others on pipeline safety as we have hearings and legislation about phmsa. with that i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yiel bk e balan oti. without objeconpr question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. pallone: i'd like the yeas
and nays, please. the speaker pro tempore: the yeasndayare requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays w a raistdi until unte seueravg ar tsnysre ordered. members will record their votes by ectnidece. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20 the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage of the bill if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 182, the nays are 241. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. pallone: on that i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and ys wse remstdi until cot. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and naya ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.
this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states usof 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 resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the bill is passed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise >> mr. speaker, by direction of the democratic caucus, i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 40, resolved that the following named members be and are hereby elected to the following standing committees of the house of representatives. one, committee on agriculture -- mr. becerra: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the record.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. without objection the reon is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergencies act, 50 united states code 1622-d, provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that national emergency
declared with respect to foreign terrorists who threaten to disrupt the middle east peace process is to continue in effect beyond january 23, 2015. the crisis with respect to grave acts of violence committed by foreign terrorists who threaten to disrupt the middle east peace process that led to the deck layeration of a national emergency on january 23 1995, has not been involved. terrorist groups continue to engage in activities that have the purpose or effect of threatening the middle east peace process and that are hostile to the united states' interests in the region. such actions continue to pose unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the united states. therefore, i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to foreign terrorists who threaten to disrupt the middle east peace process and to maintain and enforce the sanctions
against them to respond to this threat. signed barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma ek cti? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today because i believe every life is a gift. our nation was built on the right to life.
mr. russell: our founding fathers wrote that all men are created equal and that we have certain undeniable right, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. our government was institutioned to secure these rights, not take them away. i stand with hundreds of thousands of people from across the country who traveled to our nation's capital to tell lawmakers that we must protect the innocent. that we must fight for those who cannot defend themselves. i'm proud of many young people who are in washington, d.c. this week to defend life. you are the voice of the voiceless and you are the future. i'm proud to join so many of my colleagues in this chamber today to defend the life and spread this message that every life is a gift. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> to address the house floor for one minute, to unanimous consent, and to revise and
extend my remarks. the speaker pro tpo: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for on e. >> as the president noted in his state of the union address last evening, we should be proud of the progress we've made since the great recession but there's still so much to do on growth, especially for paycheck progress. for most americans, especially in the san francisco bay area, here's our reality. costs all around us are going up, wages are staying flat. that is a right angle that is taking american families in the wrong direction. pay for paycheck progress we must reform our tax code so it's fair for all americans and finally ensure equal pay for equal work. instead of addressing these issues, many house republicans are calling for giveaways for special interests, rolling back women's critical health issues. let's be real. in the 1990's it was, it's the economy, stupid. you ask any american family today, it's my paycheck, stupid. if we focus on one thing this congress. let's make sure that it's the
paychecks of working class americans. the american people deserve better than what is being served up. let's work together on paycheck progress, not partisanship. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. 3,288 per day 137 per hour, one every 26 seconds, that's how many children are denied their god-given right to life each and every day. mr. messer: as we mark the 42nd anniversary of roe v. wade, we should remember each of those children and the potential each had. i am unapologetically pro-life and have been a longtime supporter of efforts to protect the unborn, because every human life is precious.
we must continue to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. today, i stand on behalf of those children and of future children who may never have a chance. we must stand together and never forget until the battle for life is won. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek c? mr. johnson: to address this body and to revise and extend for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank, speak. mr. speaker today i introduced the grand jury reform act, which requires the appointment of a special prosecutor to conduct an investigation and present the results to a judge which is in an open courtroom proceeding whenever a police officer kills an individual while on duty. after police officers killed two unarmed black men in 2014
and secret grand juries failed to indict these officers, i'm honoring dr. king's legacy by offering legislation that restores trust in our justice system while ensuring a fair process for all. we are the beneficiaries of dr. king's legacy and we must face our challenges with the same resolve as he. i urge my fellow colleagues to support this commonsense bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend -- i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. davis: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the thousands of students from across the country who are participating in tomorrow's march for life event.
i'm praying for safe travels for all the groups from my district, including st. thomas moore high school, st. louis parish, the parish i attended mass at this weekend, holy family -- holy trinity in stonington illinois, and the illinois life caravan as they drive through the night and travel almost 800 miles to come to washington to stand up for what they believe in. i have renewed hope and faith in our nation's young people, as i see students from high school to elementary school showing commitment to life. i'm proud to be pro-life. i believe it is my duty and part of my faith to stand up for those who cannot speak for themselves and i will continue to do so as i serve in this great congress. in the words of pope francis all life has an estimateable value, even the weakest and most vulnerable, the sick, the old, the unborn and the poor are the masterpieces of god's creation made in his own image, destined to live forever and
deserving of the utmost reference and respect. i want to thank all of those who are standing here for life with us, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire atueoeth gentlemafr ktuy rnion? mr. yarmuth: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speao e: witht jt the gentleman is recogzefoon min mr. rmh:ha y. mr. speaker, last night president obama addressed the nation and reminded us of the crossroads at which we stand. do we continue on the path we're on where only a select few prosper while so many struggle or will we instead work to rebuild our middle class, grow our economy and create new opportunities for success? but here today listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it's clear that the priorities of this body's majority are not in line with the majority of americans. the american people don't want more of the same. they want better access to education, better infrastructure and an honest chance at the american dream. they want a fair college loan system, they want the relief of knowing that their retirement and their parent's retirement is safe and sound not left to
the whims of wall street. and as president obama made clear, they want a tax system that rewards work, not wealth. i'm proud to support many of the priorities laid out in last night's speech because they put practicality above partisan politics. let's hope for the sake of the american people that this congress does the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recogti? >> mr. speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the genogzorne minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. on the anniversary, the 42nd anniversary of roe v. wade, i stand with my colleagues in defense of innocent human life. mr. emmer: my wife and i were blessed with seven beautiful children, each with their own unique gifts. since roe v. wade, more than 56 million unborn babies have been robbed of the chance to reach their true potential. our nation's role as a defender of the rights to life in
liberty erode with each innocent life that is taken. this is not a partisan issue or a judgment of others, but we must never stop defending the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. in an era where common ground can be hard to find, i am honored to serve with the men and women dedicated to the protection of these most basic of liberties. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recogni sgs -- recognition? mr. conaway: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise andxtd remarks. the speapror withoutbjon the gentl ignorne minute. mr. conawa this house tomorrow will consider h.r. 36, the pain capable act, and i'll support that bill because it will support most children in the circumstances because it does not protect all children. every child at 20 weeks and older deserves protection from the violence perpetrated on them in the womb by late-term abortions. this bill does not protect all children because it gives an exception for children
conceived in rape and incest. no child 20 weeks and older should be subjected to that regardless of their circumstances which they are conceived. i encourage my colleagues to work to try to correct that injustice as well and i hope this bill will be perfect tomorrow in the sense it will protect every single child 20 weeks and older because none of them deserve less and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yies ck. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for on e. >> mr. sak i rise today in honor and respect of the thousands of people who will come to our city to rally, to give support to the life of the unborn. many years ago, while in london i saw a video that depicted the life as they described it of the baby, 25 years ago. it wasn't anything less than a baby.
mr. speaker, i'm a father, i'm a grandfather. mr. pitener: i've got nine -- mr. pittenger: i've got nine grand babies. that baby might be the cure for alzheimer's. only god knows. i thank the leadership for bringing forth this legislation tomorrow. i respect them for doing it. we need to rally and support to show our commitment to the life of the unborn. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. hastings of florida for today and tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek rni sgs recognition?
mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extd eirerks on the topic of our special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. smith: mr. speaker it's igeo yield to my good friend and colleague from ann wagner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend for one mt. the chair announces the speaker's reappointment pursuant to section 4-d of house resolution 5, 114th congress, and the order of the house of january 6 2015, of the following individuals to serve as are the governing board of the office of congressional ethics. the clerk: nominated by the speaker with the concurrence of the minority leader -- mr. porter j. goss of florida, chairman. mr. james m. eagen of colorado, mr. allison hayward of
virginia mr. biggert of virginia, alternate. with the concurrence of the speaker, mr. david scaggs of colorado co-chairman. brigadier general retired belinda pinke of virginia, mr. karen english of arizona, mr. mike barnes of virginia alternate. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. . mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes or such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlelady from missouri. mrs. wagner: thank you very much. i appreciate and thank the gentleman for yielding and for hosting this very important special order today. and for his lifetime of service in protecting the right of the unborn. those who have no voice. so i thank you, sir. mr. speaker i rise today in support of the sanctity of life.