tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN October 8, 2015 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
the question is on passage of the bill. hose in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. young: madam speaker. madam speaker, on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are requested. members will record their votes y electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the one-minute request is granted. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will please be in order. please take your conversations -- clear the aisles, please. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. last month in venezuela, the novet national association of opposition mayors issued a message to the international community, including here in the united states, obviously, stating many of the obstacles being faced leading up to venezuela's legislative election which are scheduled to take place on december 6 . according to their statement, venezuelan regime employees are only gated and harassed to
attend public events to demonstrate support for pro-regime candidates. socialist party militants are dispatched to intimidate voters under the guise of assistance. and the regime is using military forces to keep citizens from voluntarily auditing electoral precincts as stated by law. as the madura regime continues to refuse allowing international monitors, the united states must be even more vigilant of the threat of fraud before and during election day in venezuela. we should also be ready to sanction any regime official who perpetuates human rights violations because of this electoral process. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. order, please. order. please clear the aisles and have your conversations outside the chamber, please.
let's have some order here please. please carry on your conversations outside the chamber. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate taiwan's national day or double-10 day on saturday october 10. taiwan and the united states share a close relationship since the passage of the taiwan act of 1979 with deep trade ties and close cooperation between our two countries. mr. deutch: taiwan has grown to be a friend of the united states. one man embodied the heroism of
his country. enin in o was in vee vienna in world war ii, issued visas to jews who otherwise would not have been able to leave austria. please join me in celebrating taiwan's national day and paying tribute to mr. ho's sacrifices and actions. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> with just one change in the law, we could create nearly 400,000 american jobs, potentially help lower gas prices and assert soft power that keeps bad actors from around the world from affecting
the price of oil that change would be lifting the ban on crude oil exports. mr. paulsen: with these benefits for america it makes sense to embrace that change and put it on the president's desk right away. it's a relic of the past that needs to be lifted to ensure the united states is a preeminent leader in the world. the united states is the only country in the world with a ban on exporting oil. with countries like iran and russia flexing their muscles, lifting the ban would help our energy and national security. more than that, removing the crude oil export ban means helping our economy with more good-paying jobs for hardworking americans. mr. speaker, it's time to lift the crude oil export ban. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.
>> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the republic of china on taiwan's national day and cognize the heroism of a chinese diplomat stationed in vienna in world war ii. ms. frankel: at grease risk to his own life he issued thousands of chinese visas to jews, allowing them to escape nazi camps. his courage is just one example of the republic of china's proud heritage celebrated on national day. a vital u.s. trading partner, taiwan helps maintain peace and stability in the western pacific nd shares our values for freedom, democracy and respect for human rights. rooted in a history of mutual interest and common goal, the
u.s. and taiwan ease relationship will continue to flour herb. him and wish to the people of taiwan a happy national tai. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. mr. honda: mr. speaker, next week marks the 18th annual international earth science week. today i am introducing the house resolution to recognize earth science week to highlight the importance and broad impact of earth science research. geoscientists, researchers in our country continually push the front teefers human knowledge. help develop and incubate concepts and programs that keep us at the innovative forefront of the world's economy and inspire future generations of researchers, scientists and
informed citizens. earth science funding is a stimulant to the american economy and an investment into our future global leadership. the devastating drought in my home city of california highlights the need for earth science research which can address major gaps in understanding water availability, quality and dynamic. having a better understanding of natural systems allows for more informed policy. i'm committed to working with my friend and fellow science advocate, chairman culberson, to ensure that federal earth science research is given robust support and is not hindered but misguided legislation that micromanages and places funding caps on critical fields. it is critical we study and understand our pale blue dot, our one and only hope. -- home, thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin seek recognition?
without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today with a heavy heart to mourn the six service members and five civilians killed in a recent crash of an air force transport plain in afghanistan. ms. moore: yesterday, the house held a moment of silence to mark their sacrifice. one of those who died was senior airman quinn johnson harris, whose family now calls milwaukee, wisconsin, their home. he and his fallen comrades join the list of the 2 rblings 300 heroes who have given their lives in afghanistan. as a member of congress, there is no more difficult moment in our jobs than this. my heart and prayers go out to the family. there's no question that quinn made our community in milwaukee
stronger and our nation safer because of his service. this young manmade a difference wherever he went. i hear it in the stories that have come out after his death from his family, his friends, his teachers, and others about his dedication to them and his country. his mother said, quote, quinn dared to be different. he beat by his own drum. when his family, community, or country called this young man stood up and did not shrink back. according to his sister, when she heard he was being deployed to afghanistan, he was ready to go. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. moore: this should surprise no one. he came from a military family, his grandfather served in vietnam, his older brother was a marine and another older brother a 2015 graduate of west point, is in the army. mr. speaker, i join his family, his friends, his fellow servicemen in mourning his life,
yet celebrating the life of this young hero, senior air manquin johnson harris. i thank you mr. speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. s. titus: thank you. without congressional action, medicare premiums and deductibles will increase in 2016 by 52% for an estimated $7 -- for an estimated 7.5 million american seniors and people with disabilities. because these folks will not be receiving a social security cost of living adjustment for 2016, 30% of beneficiaries will not be held harmless and their premiums will increase from $104 to $159 per month.
to stop rates from increase, i've introduced the medicare premium fairness act which will protect seniors and people with disabilities by capping premiums at 2015 levels for a year. i urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this important legislation. seniors and our -- seniors in our communities worked hard all their lives and saw our country through a war, depression, and dramatic social change. at a time when every dollar count, critical legislation will ensure that seniors can put food on the table and buy life-saving med cases. so let's stand up for america's seniors. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker appointment pursuant to 2 u.s.c. 6913 and the order of the house of january 6, 2015ing of the following member on the part of the house to the congressional executive commission on the people's republic of china.
the clerk: mrs. black of tennessee. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment of the work force innovation and opportunity act, publication l 113-128 and the order of the house of january 6, 2015, of the following individual on the part of the house of the national council on disability. the clerk: lieutenant colonel windsor, ade, new new york. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: mr. hudson of north carolina for today and for friday, october 8. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request s granted.
under the speaker's announced the of january 6, 2015, gentlewoman from new jersey, mrs. watson coleman, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mrs. watson coleman: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. watson coleman: thank you, mr. speaker. this past spring congress passed legislation to authorize the president to negotiate and sign sweeping trade agreements with limited input from congress. when i say the president, i'm not just talking about mr. obama. mr. speaker, i'm talking about anyone who sits in the oval office from now on. this body then went ron to pass a trade adjustment assistance package that falls short of what's necessary. and in and of itself acknowledges the loss of
employment that comes from the trade agreement. those steps set the stage for the trans-pacific partnership, the final language which was announced earlier this week. that deal was built from years of secret negotiations between corporations and trade representatives with little to no input from the working families who will have to bear the loss of jobs here at home. mr. speaker, back in new jersey, we know what happens when trade deals don't consider american workers. factories close, employees are laid off, whole cities that used to pump out products for consumers around the world are suddenly faced with stunted economies and incomprehensible unemployment. while i'm not opposed to free trade, our priority can't simply be corporate danes under the guise of economic growth. it must be the welfare of working families.
and working families are going to find themselves out of luck if they're forced to compete with salaries of just cents and hour overseas. t.p.p. is a very bad deal. it lacks provisions to address currency manipulation, it lacks environmental standards that will keep manufacturers accountable and ensure we're preventing some of the human causes of climate change. it lacks labor standards that protect the human rights of workers in places like mexico, vietnam and malaisea, running against the most -- malaysia, running against the most basic american values. and it does this on the flawed philosophy that supporting multinational corporations somehow helps the middle class. mr. speaker, let me state for the record the no trade deal is ever crafted to support the american middle class, and any suggestion otherwise is a flat
out bold face lie. international trade is always marketed as the key to economic growth, but we're told that opening new markets means more opportunities for u.s. businesses. that's true in part, but the businesses that profit most are multinational corporations, and part of that profit comes from sending american jobs overseas. we'll allow those same companies to continue to enjoy tax loopholes that maximize their bottom lines and allow them to keep much of their profits stashed away elsewhere. and if nafta and cafta are any example, these profits will never make it down the line to americans striving to get to the middle class. if we're serious about growing our economy in a way that supports every american, there are plenty of policy changes that we could make. we could give our workers a living wage that would allow
them to support their families. we could provide better primary and secondary education and more affordable, higher education. we could offer employment through the hundreds of thousands of jobs we could create by investing in infrastructure repairs and upgrades, and we could do a lot better than t.p.p. so before we move forward, my congressional progressive colleagues and i have come to the floor to urge members on both sides of the aisle to take what limited time we have to change the course. we have just one last opportunity to fix this deal, to protect american workers and to ensure a deal will actually boost our economy, not just the profit margins of multinational corporations, and we need to take that time. with that i yield to a member who has been an -- as outspoken as any of us as we talk about
the need to re-examine this flawed agreement. i yield to the gentlelady from new york, our ranking member on the rules committee, louise slaughter. ms. slaughter: thank you very much. i do appreciate the gentlelady yielding to me. mr. speaker, this is debate i seem to have before. i was here for the nafta debate. congressional districts throughout this country, including my own of rochester new york, find it very difficult to survive another trade deal that sends our jobs overseas to countries that ignore human rights violations and undermine our laws and public health here at home. during my time in congress, i have never seen a trade agreement that the united states participated in that benefited either the american manufacturer or the american worker, and everything i know about the trans-pacific partnership suggests it will be
more of the same. despite a bipartisan push by 158 democrats and republicans in the house of representatives, the trade deal announced this week will do nothing to address the largest trade barrier our manufacturers face, which is currency manipulation. as with past trade deals, a side agreement and the t.p.p. related to currency manipulations window dressing that is unlikely to be enforced at all, as most of the nafta side agreements were not, and will do little to stem the flow of american jobs overseas. as with past trade deals, this will force american manufacturers to compete with the foreign companies and receive -- that receive unfair advantages from their government. ford motor company has come out in opposition to this trade agreement. the t.p.p. has been negotiated
in secrecy by multinational conglomerates and we know from the united states, the financial service industry and the pharmaceutical companies both have only one priority, the bottom line, were very important in those negotiations. and now an agreement has been reached, the negotiators will longer be able to keep the contents of the bad trade deal hidden from the public. as you know, mr. speaker, were any of us to look at the trade deal they did make available over here, we were not able to take a pencil or paper with us. we had to have someone with security clearance to go with us. our own staff could not go, and we could not speak about it. that's some strange idea, i think, of democracy. i've been in conversations with parliamentarians from australia and from canada who have had the same problem. as a matter of fact, in australia, if any of the parliamentarians talked, wanted
to see the trade deal, they had to sign a paper they would not discuss it for four years. for three of the greatest economies and democracies in this trade agreement -- united states, canada and australia -- to allow their parliamentarians to be put into that kind of restraint is one of the most egregious parts of these trade agreements. we will w now that look at it, that negotiators will have a lot of explaining to do because as americans learn more how this will impact their day-to-day lives with things like unsafe food imports , we are pretty certain about that because we already turned around a great number -- tons of seafood companies. we import 98% of the seafood we eat. it is important. about 2% to 3% of it is
inspected. the need to defeat the bad frayed deal will grow. let me tell you why we and the canadians and the australians and the european union and the united nations are upset about this. this is something called the investor dispute settlement and continue onerous. it gives to three corporate lawyers the right to settle disputes, any investor state in this agreement can bring a case against any of the other countries in the agreement if they think that a law or a practice in that country affects their bottom line. and we know that everybody's worried about that here because one committee of the house, just in talking about it, did away with country of origin labeling. so as i pointed out, both the united nations and the european union have done papers on the fact that this is a very bad to let un anything,
three corporate lawyers make that decision, but we're going to be stuck with that, unfortunately. unless we can kill the bill. what is even more important is some our trading partners, malaysia. they have the worst human rights record on the face of the earth, we know that. state department's always giving them a very low grade. they have slave labor. we know they do sex trafficking. they just recently took the prime minister off to some kind of charges. there is no reason in the world we would include them in a trade agreement and then there's also brew inside which practices -- brunai which practices shahrya law. this dispute settlement can make sure our laws do not interfere with their making a profit. we're better people than that, mr. speaker. we're going to be looking at this very closely. it is really not a trade deal, in my view. it's a race to the bottom, and i yield back the balance of my
time. thank you, sir. mrs. watson coleman: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank the gentlelady from new york for her comments and for being with us today, part of the progressive caucus. i'd like to now yield to a member who has been outspoken on behalf of working families, american workers, mr. pocan from pennsylvania. mr. pocan: thank you very much, mr. speaker. really glad to be here today with the progressive caucus special order hour and i'd like to thank the gentlelady from new jersey, mrs. watson coleman, for all her hard work on behalf of the progressive caucus and on behalf of this issue of the trans-pacific partnership. as we know over the weekend and all last week, the u.s. trade representative's office's cooks have been in the kitchen and they said that the trans-pacific partnership is done. but from everything we can tell, it is not fully baked.
in fact, at best, it is half baked when it comes to labor, environmental and consumer concerns. now that a final deal has been reached, we ask the administration to let the american public immediately see the full text of this agreement. this negotiating process has not been transparent up to this point despite claims from the u.s. trade representative ace office. we know that about -- representative's office. we know that about 600 people have been involved in the drafting of the trans-pacific partnership, but not congress and certainly not members of the public. and this secretive nature of these negotiations is compounded by the pressure to throw together this deal based on the political timelines of our negotiating partners rather than with the regard of the u.s. worker in mind. and reports throughout the course of the negotiating process has raised serious questions about the impact of this agreement in a number of areas ranging from workplace
and environmental protections to food safety, but most importantly, jobs and wages. we all know this economy has been rebounding. the stock market is significantly up from the 2008 crash. corporate profits are up. c.e.o. pay is up. productivity is up. but wages for the american worker have unfortunately been dead flat. and the trans-pacific partnership will lead to the loss of good-paying jobs right here in the u.s. through several decades of unfair trade rules, corporations have outsourced production and offshored jobs, and the t.p.p. will only exacerbate this problem. in fact, on tuesday in its initial analysis, the wall street journal" projected the increase of the manufacturing trade deficit of $38.2 billion. that means jobs and wages right
here in the united states. additional reports have also said that labor standards will remain subpar, that currency manipulation has not been adequately addressed, rules of origin for autos have been weakened and human rights issues with countries like malaysia and brunai have not been dealt with properly. among these concerns, corporations still have the ability to supersede laws of our country through the investor state dispute settlement process, something that representative slaughter explained very aggressively in her comments. this doesn't address currency manipulation which has contributed to the loss of up to five million u.s. jobs and despite claims by the administration that this agreement is the most progressive high-standard deal that we ever negotiated. the labor environmental rules and trade agreements are hardly
enforced. four years ago when we passed the columbia free trade agreement, they have put provisions within colombian law and not one of that has been implemented and 100 labor leaders have been killed. so these trade agreements haven't worked based on past practice and without changes, they're not going to work in future progress as well. in addition, the administration has gone out of its way to help cover up human rights atrocities in order to conclude these negotiations. malaysia was demoted in the state department's 2014 trafficking report due to its grossly inadequate response to reverse tracking of minority groups. mass graphs were found of workers in workers and to
include them and countries like brunai that still stone gays and lesbians is further evidence that this deal is not ready for the public or congress to accept for the public. the transpacific partnership is neither fair trade or free trade. it is a system of rules crafted by multinational corporate interests that work for powerful people at the expense of everyone else. this isn't just about jobs or wages, this is an agreement about corporate profit. past trade deals have been a disaster for american workers, so it is imperative that congress review this deal to ensure the american people aren't yet taken for a ride again. ain, i will renew my call to immediately release the text of the agreement. 600 corporate c.e.o.'s know
what's in the deal but the 435 members of this house and the american public don't know. if this deal is as good as it is, let's review it with the public. my fear that it's not and going to cost american jobs and wages and we have to reject the transpacific partnership. and i yield my time back. mrs. watson coleman: i thank the gentleman from from pennsylvania to talk about what is such an important issue for us. mr. speaker, it isn't often we get the second bite at an apple but this is one of the opportunities we do have. there have been a number of issues that have been raised that i believe validate from our perspective that this is not a good deal. it is not a good deal for american families. it's not a good deal for american workers and only a good deal for multinational
corporations. we are engaging in a relationship, a trade relationship, with countries whose values we do not share and on occasion we had the opportunity to shame. and i believe, mr. speaker, that we, as members of congress can find this as an opportunity to work together, to do something collectively, which is better for the workers for the american family and the american worker and we can do that at the same time we have the opportunity to have fair trade agreements and just trade agreements. and with that, mr. speaker, i would like to yield to a member who have been outspoken about the need to turn back about this flawed agreement. a leader on women's rights and building an economy. and that would be the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro.
ms. delauro: i thank my colleague and what an honor to join with you and thank you for your steadfast efforts in fighting for working families, for the american workers, men and women and not being afraid to stand up and say no what would be injustice to american workers and their families. it has been four days since the france pacific partnership was announced. we have not yet been shown the text, but we have heard a chorus of spin about the supposed benefits of this secret agreement. after more than five years of talk, the parties have announced a deal without having released a single word to the public. the negotiations took place under unprecedented secrecy. special corporate interests had a place at the table. congress and the american families were locked out.
the american people and their elected representatives are forced to rely on leaks to find out what is in this agreement. but, the truth is that on vital issues like workers' rights and human rights, the standards are only valuable if they are enforced. if experience is any guide, we will do little to enforce those provisions. i remember in 2007, when my democratic colleagues in this chamber forced the bush administration to renegotiate a number of trade agreements to include enhanced labor standards. in the eight years since, neither the current administration nor its predecessor has taken meaningful action to enforce those provisions. and so dozens of colombian union organizers are being murdered espite labor provisions in the
agreement. thousands of acres of forests are being destroyed despite the environmental provision in the u.s.-peru free trade agreement. why would we assume that the transpacific partnership will be any different when it comes to unai's persecution of lgbt people, and forced labor or vietnam's abundant use of child labor? in fact, the administration has already shown us how little regard it pays to these issues by upgrading malaysia's classification on human trafficking in order to sign the transpacific agreement. past experience tells us what to expect. the last big trade, the u.s.-korea free trade agreement
int this country 75,000 jobs three years. the t.p.p. will be even worse. not only is it far bigger, it will throw americans into competition with the vietnamese workers who make less than 65 cents per hour. these provision will offshore jobs, lower our wages, increase income inequality. american workers have seen this happen to them year after year after year. and to compound these problems, it has been reported that the t.p.p. will remove support from green jobs and american industry by outlawing buy american and buy local standards in government procurement contracts.
and potentially opening the door for chinese state-owned enterprises to take those contracts. in common with previous trade agreements, the t.p.p. does nothing to curb currency manipulation which allows countries to keep their goods and the price of their goods at artificially low prices. that means if they lower their prices and their currency, ours are more expensive. this abuse, not in my words, but in the words of economist at the peterson institute, and the center for american progress, they believe that currency manipulation and its practice by china, by singapore and vietnam are all part of the transpacific partnership agreement that currency manipulation has led to the loss of almost five million
jobs in the united states of america. and one of the biggest historical manipulateors, japan, is a member of the t.p.p. the administration has even floated the idea of adding china, probably the worst currency manipulator in history. china's recent devaluation, just a few short weeks ago cost up to 640,000 jobs, american jobs, according to the economic policy institute. and after the administration decided to take no action against china, t.p.p. partner vietnam followed suit and they devalued their own currency. in other words, with this agreement, we are rewarding the cheats. no currency forum as the administration has talked about, because enforceable currency
regulations are not in the legislation, but they say there is going to be a forum to discuss it. you can have a lot of forums, but unless you have an enforcement mechanism to say no, it's not going to be fixed. and it has to be fixed in the agreement and it is not. so it is meaningless. it doesn't end that h there. w.t.o. trade agreements led to the dismantling of american food labeling laws. country of origin labeling so that the american public will know where their food is coming from. the t.p.p. allows multinational corporations as well as foreign governments to challenge u.s. law. it will not belong before we start to see challenges, a system that is strained to the breaking point by a flood of
tainted, contaminated seafood from the t.p.p. countries like malaysia and vietnam. and timely we know the t.p.p. across ablish rules partner nations. that makes no sense in a free trade agreement. why would you do this? that is only to keep drug prices high. one used combination of h.i.v. drugs costs $10,000 per year pharma ght from a big monopoly. ut as a generic, it onlt costs $250. and what this agreement will do is to zhray generic coming to the -- delay generic coming to the market. the agreement compromises our
access to medicine. your constituents and mine. and all of our colleagues. president obama said on monday that the transpacific partnership agreement, quote, reflects american values. but the administration's approach has been the opposite. it has put corporate special interests before the interests of the american people instead of learning from past experience , we are being railroaded into yet another trade agreement that risks our jobs, our wages and the health of our families. but under the law, there is still time for congress to reject the transpacific partnership agreement, and that is what we need to do. in a bipartisan way. and there are people on both
sides of the aisle in this institution that oppose this agreement. we need to come together and we need to come together for the sake of the working men and women that we represent all over this country. that is what our job is to do right now. we have a moral responsibility, we have an obligation to the people who elect us and send us here to represent their best interests and everything that we know from past agreements and what limited amount of information, we know from this agreement will put the economic security at risk for american families. i want to say to my colleagues, thank you for doing this. we need over the next several weeks to be doing this every single day, because the word has to go out to the american public at just what is at stake in this
trade agreement, and they will be calling their representatives and telling them to vote no. thank you very, very much for the opportunity to participate tonight. mrs. watson coleman: i want to thank the gentlelady from connecticut for her eloquent and compelling words whenever she speaks up for the american people and does show in a convincing way and backed by empirical data and not just dreams but what she already knows. i feel particularly honored to represent the congressional progressive caucus here this evening to speak out on issues that we know are very important to the well-being of the american worker and our american families. and i do pray that our congressional body can come together around an issue that affects all of us in any district that we might represent
in any corner of the united states of america. and at any economic strata that we might represent. with that, mr. speaker, i have no more speakers who want to address this issue this evening. and i thank you for your indulgence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker. it's certainly loud enough in here. thank you very much. i appreciate the leadership allowing me to visit with you
about something that's near and dear to my heart. i hope we spend the better part of the next hour discussing a bill tomorrow that will be before this body which is h.r. 702 which would lift the 40-year-old -- decades' old ban on exporting a domestic product, domestic commodity called crude oil. as you look at our -- the things that america buys and sells around the world, the only commodity that we produce here in the united states that we cannot export is crude oil. it hearkens back to 40 years go that you'll talk about in a second. there are no restrictions on imports. you can import all the crude oil that you like but we have a restriction on exporting crude oil. the administration signaled a bit of a change in that they licensed a swap of certain number of barrels of heavy crude from mexico coming to the
united states. there was at least one opportunity recently where the commerce department authorized that swap and in effect began to export some of this crude that we produce every single day. 40 years ago, the arab oil embargo and things that happened -- most of the folks in this chamber except you and i don't necessarily recall the long lines at the gas station and the rationing and the way that you had to even number license plates were ok one day and odd number license plates from ok. i was living in dallas and get up at 5:00, go sit in line at a gas station in order to fill up the car so that i could make it downtown and back and forth. our at disruptive to quiet lives. a price of oil went from $3 barrel to $12 a barrel. a four-fold increase. that shock hammered the
economy. a lot of things that was going on. as a part of that response, in addition to -- just before the arab oil embargo in the 1973-ish time frame, 1973, 1974, the united states through a secret study determined that american crude oil production may have peaked in 1970, and that the wells in the united states that were then producing and the new ones that would be brought online that the daily production of the united states would slowly decline over -- from that point on. and that scarce resource of strategic value needed to stay here in the united states. and so while we were even a net importer at that point in time, the wisdom of the -- had this house and senate and the president at the time was let's just not export u.s. crude. let's use all of it here and we'll buy from other folks the crude oil we needed to make up the difference in our refinery
loads. that's held true for the last 35 years -- for 35 years. and then something pretty stunning happened and that was this incredible renaissance in the oil and gas business that's occurred over the last five years. this is a -- history writes about this era of the oil and gas business, it will talk about these incredible break throughs in technology and the science associated with it and the risk taking of the private sector. the president, current president, likes to brag about the current increase in production. this has all come in the private sector, private lands and private initiative where this has happened. permitting on public property, public lands has slowed down and actual production off of our federal lands has shrunk from where it has been. for 35 years it was a policy that was out there. it was never an issue because we didn't produce every day to export, and then about five years ago this process of
increased production driven by plate kan, the shale oil in texas and eagleford in south texas, frack jobs, that allowed the oil to escape out of the rock in quantity its heretofore not really contemplated or known. the oil was in the rock. everyone knew that. they just didn't know how to get it out of the rock. this wonderful renaissance began to occur and u.s. production began to increase every day to the point now that the estimates are -- had price not dropped, estimates were by 2020 we will be the largest exporter and that we would have an excess. we already had a bit of an excess of crude oil in the united states because it had to go through u.s. refineries. u.s. refineries are set up to process heavy crude, which is not what's produced out of this oil shale. that's light sweet crude.
and so consequently we had more light sweet. we're still importing crude every day from venezuela and other countries that feed our heavy crude into the -- into our refineries. and so got on everybody's radar screen that we need to figure out a way to unlock this market, eliminate the inefficiencies associated with not being able to export u.s. crude. there has the result of that two sets of prices in the world markets. there is a brint price of crude which is north sea crude and west texas intermediate price that's in the markets. there has been for a long time now a differential between those two prices, the west texas intermediate price, which is what our local american producers get, was less than the brint crude and that differential was driven by the fact that we had no market for u.s. crude other than u.s. refineries given the laws and the restrictions that were in place. and so the movement began to
explore the opportunity for lifting this ban, this decades' long ban on crude oil. so moving forward. throughout the years that harry reid was in charge of the senate, it was a nonstarter because it was not likely we could get a bill to go through the senate but with the republican victory last november and control in the senate by republicans, it now then game an opportunity for us to examine this policy and see if it makes sense. just to set the record straight, we treat iran, even without the bad deal the president foisted on us, we treat iran better than we treat american producers because even before the sanctions are lifted in iran, they can produce and, export about a million barrels of crude oil a day. the u.s. is zero. so as you step back and look at the big picture, we treat iran, with all the mischief they do and the bad actor they are and
the threat to world peace that they are, they get better treatment than domestic producers and that makes no sense whatsoever when you look at the overall issue. and so we are at a point now where with this drop in prices, almost half of what it was, we've begun to see that crude oil production will probably tail off here in the united states this quarter, but the oil is there. we know how to get it. the science is available. it's just simply driven by the price to recover the drilling and depletion cost is what's causing the current decline. we know where it is and how to go get it. when a well comes online from day one it will begin to produce less oil today than it did yesterday. and that process, that decline will move forward throughout the life of that well until it reaches its economic limit. the economic limit of a producing well is driven by the
price versus how much it cost you to get it out of the ground, the taxes associated with the well -- with the barrel, the royalties associated with it. those have got to be in a positive circumstance or it doesn't make any sense to produce that crude oil. the drilling and the completion of a well, you got to be able to recover the -- that investment from the total number of barrels you expect to produce out of that well. and when you know the fixed cost going in, very few are recoverable, your own return is to sell the crude oil. it's got to be at a price given how much you think each well will produce, got to be at a price where you can recover that investment as well as cover your incremental cost each day of producing that crude oil. sound e are some economic reasons why at current prices of crude oil that there's less drilling going on and certainly less completion going on in the market. that oil's not going anywhere. that shale is just the way it was when the price was a lot
higher. so if prices were to recover and it makes sense, then our american domestic producers could go back to producing more and would then reset that decline on an upwards slope so we are in fact producing more oil today than we did yesterday because we're bringing on more wells every single day to offset the natural decline that each well will experience. so there are reasons why this is in circumstances, but while we got this window of opportunity, it is time now to lift this crude oil ban. mr. speaker, i'm joined by my neighbor and -- from -- he represents the southern 2/3 of new mexico and more importantly, he represents my three grand sons who live in las cruces, new mexico, so i watch him like a hawk to make sure he's doing a good job representing my grand sons, so it's my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from new mexico such time as he may consume, steve pearce. mr. pearce: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to bring the attention that we're engaged in a very
important activity here. we're talking about american jobs. now, some people dismiss jobs as being a four-letter word. well, i mean, it kind of is but not that four-letter word. it's an important piece. when i was born, my father was a share cropper, 1947, the year i was born, he made $200, the next year, the drought year, he made $50. mom said we're leaving the farm. she jumped in the pickup truck. dad jumped in the back along with us kids, three kids that time, later would become six, and they headed to the west. i don't think they knew where they were. they got 75 miles down the road, broke down three miles outside of hobbs, new mexico, they hitchhiked into hobbs and that's where i grew up. dad was able to find almost immediately in the oil field. he got the lowest level making $2.62 an hour. now, to them, to my family who
had made $200 for a full year's work, $50 for the next year's work, $2.62 an hour was the absolute pinnacle. they never moved from hobbs. they stayed there and raised six children on $2.62 an hour and of course it graduated through the years. and that's what i am passionate about this export ban, because right now we have people in approximate my home county who are being laid off because our oil is sitting in the pipelines , the pipelines going to houston are filled up and so companies are having to shut down wells. they're having to stop production. now, there have been some of the countries in the baltics come to eddie county, one of the counties i represent, and said we'll buy our light sweet oil. crude oil is better than what we buy from russia. we would stop buying from russia and buy from you except we have this ban in place.
we can't ship oil out of this country. now, we have to understand that 95% of the world's consumers are outside the united states. so when we have this self-imposed problem, this self-imposed restriction on sending a product that is very needed out there know that we're penalizing american jobs. the president has been very, very ardent in his willingness to create iranian jobs because he insists that iran should be able to export their oil all the time saying that he's opposed to the idea of this bill. we're going to consider this bill tomorrow, and i think in my heart that we're doing things that would benefit people like my parents, people who did not have the option to move to new york and be on wall street. they didn't have the option to move to albuquerque, dallas. they were where they could get to and they were able to find
work and raise a family. that's the people that i'm fighting for, the people that don't have other choices. now, the oil field provides very good jobs in this current energy revolution that's taking place in the country, this explosion of shale oil production. truck drivers in my hometown are receiving $100,000 a year to drive a truck. work overtime, you can get up to $120,000, but that's the sort of job that is now available to people like my father, if you were still working, those jobs would be out there. but it's not just the people in the oil and gas industry. it's the people who work the convenient store at the corner. they're busy 24 hours a day, and so the local convenience store operator may have to pay $15 an hour just to attract people in. . it benefits everyone.
in new mexico, oil and gas provides 40% to our state's budget. so i tell teachers on the other side of the state with no oil and gas, you should be interested in this export bill, because if we put people back to work, it helps pay your salary. up and down the spectrum, people are benefited when we have a vibrant economy. if we are going to allow it to be exported, people are wondering, are we going to run out of energy. absolutely not. back when my father was working for exxon, they were the largest energy company in the world and they simply said, this area here in new mexico is going to run out of oil in the late 1980's. so they sold every producing well in that area. they simply moved out.
just a couple of years ago, a discovery was made in southern new mexico and keep in mind some of the majors made out and said there is no more futures in this area and as the discovery was made going to produce more oil from that one field than has been produced in new mexico through the whole of new mexico in all of its history. so we have this kind of thing where people are saying, i have to worry and think about the future and save it for the future. know, there is as much oil out there as we have used in new mexico. so let us have new mexico jobs and let us continue to export now instead of allowing the oil to fill up the pipelines and shut down jobs. so that's the main reason i'm supporting this. obviously, i appreciate the fact that energy is national security. the low energy prices, now
rebuilding manufacturing and the economy. as we drive the price of oil down and keep in mind that the consumers are benefited from that. $4 to $2 ent from range. so it benefits the consumers and benefiting industries that backs manufacturing. that it is essential. if you are going to manufacture, you need affordable energy. firms are moving back here in order to produce and creating other jobs that don't even seem associated with the energy business. so again you have many, many reasons for supporting this energy export bill. and i urge my colleagues to do that. and with that, i would yield back to the gentleman. if he has more time, i would rather he take some. mr. conaway: i thank the gentleman from new mexico for his thoughts and comments. he and i share or are blessed to
share a group of people who work across that state line between texas and new mexico. our districts are contiguous with each other. some of the hardest working, most dedicated patriotic folks like his dad and mom, who have built wealth, raised a family, protected that family and produced a u.s. congressman that is easy to talk about and defend. i want to flush out this idea of the geo-political aspects of lifting the ban. i was in a battleic country and in conversations with one of the top two leaders and i had a chance to ask the question of the prime minister and i said if you could buy crude oil directly from the united states, would it make your issues with putin and
all the things he is up to, less difficult to deal with? he said absolutely. absolutely. love to buy u.s. crude and not spend that money with putin and russia and help lift the boot, the russian boot off their neck that is driven by crude oil and natural gas. there is no reason whatsoever they shouldn't be running our crude through their refineries at this point in time. steve talked about his dad. my dad was the same way. he was a rough neck. rough neck is that hardy group of individuals who work on a drilling rig that is dangerous and hard and 24 hours a day. my dad would pull doubles to get the extra time and a half so the cash flow to the family would be enough to feed us. lost part of a finger as a part
of that experience. texas. were running in they were running in owe decembera, texas. my dad thought it was more important to have a job. in the early 1990's, i was part of a group that did a needs assessment in midland, texas. we talk about why jobs are important. they did a survey of midland asking what are the issues within your home and neighborhood and community that have a problem that created this problem. and then cultivated and goes down to the top 10. if you looked at that list of top 10 needs of midland, texas, nine of those would have been positively impacted by someone having a job. whatever that need was, it would have been less of a problem.
so jobs this will create, jobs that this will protect and maintain are reported. he unemployment rate is in the 3.2 range. that hides other issues associated with this problem and that is before the drop in the price of oil, not only were there a lot of jobs, but a lot of those jobs were providing 10, 15, 20 hours of overtime. overtime is a real boost because it's time and a half. these folks still have a job with the decreased drilling and all the other activity associated with the crude oil business, that overtime has evaporated. these folks still have a job but they bought trucks and other things based on that overtime. while they still have a job, their cash flow for their families are impacted.
i had the opportunity to tour our local food bank and discuss what was going on and they said the elderly population had dramatically increased as a result of these drop in prices. i said why is that? they said many of these elderly adults, their families had been hell ming them with their monthly bills. they had exroo money and able to help their families with. that trickle-down is impacting the elderly who are on fixed incomes. creating jobs, you just can't overstate or understate how important that is. i have now been joined with my fellow texan from the dallas area, pete sessions, and i would yield my good friend as much time as he wishes to take. mr. sessions: i want to thank
you for leading this effort tonight as we talk to the american people about what we're not only doing in washington, d.c.,, but about what we began several years ago, a process of talking to our colleagues about how important it was that america have a strong energy policy, and america is the only nation in the world that has a provision that does not allow the export of crude oil. crude oil is something that we have been told for a long, long time since mid-1970's that we are running out of. it's a natural resource that america has an abundance of but over the years we are running out of oil and depleting what we have. and then a few years ago, some bit of reality took place because a change in technology, a change in technology that was
called horizontal drilling, allowed those people who are in the oil patch, actually drilling and doing the hard work necessary to extract this gift that we have in this country, developed a process that would allow them to get 60% more oil than what had previously been provided for through those existing processes. and over -- overnight, americans saw that we also gained the advantage of getting more natural gas. and so the proven reserves of not only natural gas but also crude oil, shot up dramatically and it became very apparent not only to the marketplace, because we have seen consumer prices fall over the last few years from over $4.40 a gallon in lots of places, to last week in
dallas, texas, two weeks ago, gasoline at $1.97. last weekend that i was home, it was $2.18. but mr. speaker, i would sooner be paying between $1.99 and $2.18 for the gasoline i use as opposed to the scare tactics with over $4. what does this mean to the american consumer? what does this mean to families all offer over the united states? and more importantly, what does it mean to america? it means that in testimony that was gathered yesterday at the rules committee, of which i have a chance to serve as the chairman that we heard that they are expecting at least 400,000 regular jobs that would be added to the economy that would be all across the united states of
america, new york, illinois, florida, north carolina, all over this country, because it ould encourage us to do more work, to be able to instead of taking these places and putting a stop on their production, we will now do more production, get it into the worldwide market, sell it overseas and it becomes a product just like a farm product that can sell, be sold around the world that would help america exports. so, mr. speaker, i'm here to thank not only chairman joe barton, but also chairman michael cona he way to sell the ideas and reality that america can have it both ways and that is we can produce our natural
products, we can get more than 60% more out of the ground than we were getting before because of technology, and we can help the american consumer, moms and dads, who need to get to work, who need to go to softball and football practice and also to work and back and church and back and all in a way that they can meet their budget. i'm pleased and proud to say, you can count on me tomorrow that i will be there to support this great piece of legislation. i want to thank you for allowing me to be with you and talk about the importance of this bill. and wish you good luck tomorrow. and i thank the gentleman for the time. mr. conaway: thank you for your kind words and your support tomorrow. i think the bill that went through energy and commerce committee started life as a joe barton bill and we are expecting to have a solid bipartisan vote.
this isn't a partisan issue per se but the white house may try to make it that case. with that, i would like to yield as much time as my colleague from arkansas would like to speak, french hill. mr. hill: i rise in support of this commonsense bill, long time in coming and thank you for your leadership in bringing it to the floor tomorrow and the provides the committee used which was a series of hearings through the process, supported by the chairman and supported by members on both sides of the aisle. i want to thank mr. joe barton and mr. cuellar in recruiting a large bipartisan group of co-responseors to bring -- co-sponsors. i would like to say to my friend, mr. sessions and come to my area where i filled up for
$1.82. that may be the biggest economic news of the day on the floor. i want to touch on the importance of american jobs. all of our american jobs in oil patch are suffering due to low prices and low development budgets and i don't have any doubt that when reserves are revalued on september 30, that their oil and gas exploration lines of credit will be down because of pricing in the u.s. and therefore this is a boost for the economic opportunity for jobs in the united states and development. i want to the touch on the national security aspects, mr. speaker. earlier they passed ways to improve liquefied natural gas to be developed and shipped overseas to international markets. we have abundant amount of natural gas in this country. we're now the world's leading producer, and we have the opportunity to provide natural
gas in the liquefied form around the world to our allies in asia and in europe. likewise, eliminating the ban on crude oil long outgrown by north american production and our economic success will allow us to now, from a national security point of view, have liquefied natural gas and crude oil as export potential. it has economic job potential for the u.s. and more importantly to our nato allies and to you are asian allies, we offer them north american gas and crude oil as an alternative to the mideast and most importantly in europe to russia. because for too long our allies in europe have been held hostage by the politics of the mideast or the politics of russia, and this allows us to be a much better, not only economic partner, but national security partner with our allies in europe and our allies in asia.
and i want to thank you, mr. chairman, for the opportunity to come to the floor and speak in strong support of this bill to remove the export ban on crude oil in the united states and urge my fellow members, both democrat and republican, to provide a good, strong, bipartisan vote and send that message to the united states senate to join us in passing this lifting of the ban and send a message to the white house, mr. chairman, that a veto message here is not appropriate. i invite the president to reconsider and the o.m.b. and the department of energy that in fact this is a national security benefit to the united states and a jobs and economic benefit to the united states, and it's not the kind of thing that our president should issue a veto threat on. so, mr. chairman, thank you for the time and i yield back. mr. conaway: i thank the gentleman from arkansas for his comments and opinions on this issue. i hope his support draws other members of the other side of
the aisle to our arguments and to make this happen. he mentioned price he paid in arkansas recently, i dare say there's not another commodity in america that we don't check the price on more often than gasoline. you may not buy gas every day but every time you drive by a gas station you check the price. we don't put the price of bread up and milk up like that but we do put the price of gasoline up. so i've got a district that's 29 counties, 300 miles wide and 200-plus north-south. we do a lot of driving. my district director and i are always looking for that better gasoline price deal in the district as we're moving around, because you just -- it's hard wired into most all of us that the drive very much is to check that -- those
prices. this increase production in the u.s. will protect consumers from price shocks. i mentioned in 1973, 1974, the price of crude oil went from $3 a barrel to $12 barrel, a four-fold increase. the more production you have the less whipsaw you'll get in the market from disruptions in supplies from places in the parts of the world that's not quite stable such as the middle east and others. this increase in u.s. production will help consumers being whipsawed from dramatic price increases in crude oil because we have that supply. i'd like to yield to my friend from north dakota, kevin cramer, another state benefiting from the shale play and one that's probably more familiar with the balkan shale than anybody else. kevin, use as much time as you care to take. mr. cramer: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. it's -- your leadership on this has been great. as i think about what mr. hill
from arkansas was saying and expressing his appreciation for regular order and the committee process. you know, this really is probably one of the greatest examples since i've been in congress of a piece of legislation and a concept that has gone through the process the way it's supposed to go through the process because not only did the energy and commerce committee have hearings on h.r. 702 that we're going to vote on tomorrow, which lifts the ban, i know you have -- you had a bill that similarly lifts the ban and had hearings in the agriculture committee which i think, by the way, the hearing you had was probably the best hearing on the entire topic because you honed in on that impact on the consumer, the input costs for producing another important product, food, and we're pretty good in the united states in places like texas and north dakota and lots of places in between at growing food, enough food to not just feed americans but a hungry world and enhance our trade balance and enhance
our economy and using the eaceful toofl feeding food rather -- tool of feeding food rather than weapons of war. we can use the peaceful tools of energy development in place of or to enhance weapons of war. one doesn't need to be too creative to see in the world today there's some chaos. when you have vladimir putin pushing further into eastern europe, when you have him bombing in syria, when you have him selling arms to iran, you have iran being able to get arms, now being able to sell their oil in the global marketplace, to have the stabilizing impact of u.s. production into the global marketplace, i think can only benefit everybody. that's true of not just stabilizing price as we see the brint global price much higher than the domestic w.t.i. price
and only average over the past five years that spread has been $11, a spread that's not enjoyed by consumers but certainly harms economic opportunity and job opportunity in the united states. your hearing really honed in on that cost to consumers and the benefit to consumers. and the foreign affairs committee as well. so we had three committees of jurisdiction talking about this issue and this bill coming to the floor tomorrow, going through the rules committee, the rules committee allowing a number of amendments to be debated and voted on tomorrow. many amendments introduced by democratic members as well as republican members. it's just been a rich experience. there are a number of issues related to it. coming from north dakota, i can tell you firsthand not that many years ago i was the economic development and finance director in the state of north dakota at a time when
we were just stabilizing out migration, but part of the reason we were stabilizing it because we lost so many of our young people. our small towns were shrinking. while we were diversifying our economy a little bit here and there, the shale revolution that came along with the technology that combined fracking with horizontal drilling changed our state, dramatically changed our state. probably my favorite antidote of the whole situation while there are many the town kill deer didn't have a football team for over 20 years because they couldn't field a man. now they have a football team. you see in the supply chain in the oil and gas industry, the jobs are not only numerous, they're really good. they pay on average 25% higher than the national average, so it really is a grand opportunity.
now, somewhat being lost and certainly its potential is being lost because we are now sort of hemmed in with light sweet crude being produced more we can use in our refineries in the united states, especially the light sweet crude which our refineries are not set up to take for the most part but refineries outside the united states are set up to take for the most part. in fact, 92% of the oil refined outside of the united states is light sweet crude. we're only about 25%, 30% of the refining capacity in the united states set up to take light sweet crude. so that distinction is important to understand when you see that we are now overproducing for the refining capacity we have in our country. i want to address, mr. chairman and mr. speaker, if i can some comments that were made by the secretary of energy ernie moniz. someone i have respect for. clearly an intellect. he made some comments over in
the senate commerce committee that while technically accurate, i suppose were certainly incomplete. he had said now is not the time to lift the oil export ban, and he said it because according to the e.i.a. that it was somehow we weren't really hemmed in because we were still importing some oil. it ignores so many things, not the least of which that distinction between light sweet and heavy sour i talked about just moments ago. the fact our refineries for the most part in the united states are set up for the heavy sour, that we aren't producing in excess of and by the way about 30% of which are owned by vertically integrated companies outside of the united states who have more an interest in buying their oil than ours, but that the world is really where the opportunity is. the other thing he ignores in his statement saying we're not et hemmed in is he ignores just the natural order of things, that global markets,
global demand being accessible to domestic producers, u.s. producers will grow the production. you can't expect people to produce more of something than they can sell or than can be used in their limited market. if we have access to the global demand, of course we're going to produce more. that's the whole point, creating more jobs, more entrepreneurial opportunities. but the other thing that others me about what secretary mmoniz said about now not being the time, it ignores the fact we still have a very low work force participation rate in this country. we need more jobs. we have many people that are either underemployed, unemployed, no longer looking for work, and these are good high-paying jobs up and down the supply chain. unless we forget, they're not just jobs in the oil area. it's not just in west texas,
it's not just in houston or north dakota or oklahoma or new mexico. these jobs are in every state in the country. in fact, in fact, according to the energy equipment and infrastructure alliance, which id a vast study on this, the third leading recipient of new jobs if this export ban is lifted is the state of illinois. you might wonder, why is it? illinois has a lot of manufacturing, especially a lot of large equipment manufacturing. those manufacturing jobs are great for families, they're great for the economy, they're great for startup business opportunities, so it's every state in the country that benefits. secretary moniz certainly dismisses that or at least ignores it in his statements. i'm going to wrap one this point. i always like to say that america's national security and america's economic security are tied directly to america's energy security. i touched on it earlier, but
there's never been a time certainly in my public service when the world was in a more fragile state and certainly chaos is reigning. i talked about vladimir putin's push into eastern europe. his bombing of syria. his alliance with iran. iran, by the way, another major producer of oil who as per the iran nuclear deal now gets to sell their oil onto the global marketplace but the president thinks it's a better idea for them than for united states producers. but he ignores the opportunity that, again, the peaceful development of oil and gas and the production of it and then the marketing of it in the global marketplace, the opportunity that has to spread influence and create peace in places that are desperately needed. especially for our allies. you know, it's interesting. i doubt that the folks that
scheduled the floor time for tomorrow's bill, i doubt they had this in mind because this was more of a process of regular order than it was the lendar, but we are right now 42-year dle of the recognition of yom kippur war. it was what really began, what really started the energy crisis that led to the 1973 embargos. we're reliving in many respects some of the geopolitical aspects of that time and that situation. our friends in israel not sure whether we're with them or not as a country, whether we're going to be with them on big issues dependent on russian oil, largely. a russia that is playing bad in the neighborhood and uncertainty as to who's going to fill the leadership vacuums in places like syria, a very
important player 42, 43 years ago. so there's a lot adding up to this being a very, very important vote tomorrow on lifting the export ban on h.r. 702. there are things adding up that we didn't even contemplate at the time the bill was introduced, but it's a grand opportunity to secure america's economy, secure america's national security while at the same time spreading our influence of freedom and free enterprise around the world, so i'm looking forward to -- hopefully a lot of bipartisan votes tomorrow, a big vote so we can send that over to the united states senate who i know has a different standard than we have but hopefully we can show them the way and i thank you for the -- yielding so much time to me, mr. chairman. .