Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House Debate on Crude Oil Exports  CSPAN  October 9, 2015 9:00am-3:01pm EDT

9:00 am
they went through. how to cope with tragedies. is not havenswer other communities go through what newtown went through. host: the house is now in session.
9:01 am
9:02 am
9:03 am
for patients established by phillip thomas back in monroe, louisiana. this group flies patients with debilitating conditions to specialty hospitals all over the nation. my district is very rural and some of my patients have to drive several hundred miles to see their doctor. like phillip says, this could be like a trip to the moon for some patients to drive that far. pilots for patients flies over 2 "600 missions to date so far, 15 to 20 patients a week. mr. abraham: they are part of a larger group of pilots that have flown over 20,000 missions a year. all the pilots are volunteer
9:04 am
and i'm proud to be one of those. pilots for patients is a shining example of what goodness of the human spirit and working together can accomplish. i wish them continued success and many years to come. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from hawaii seek recognition? mr. takai: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. takai: aloha, mr. speaker. i rise today to draw attention to our looming budget crisis and in particular the expiration of the land and water conservation fund. for over 50 years this fund has been one of our most effective tools to conserve irreplaceable lands and improve outdoor recreation activities throughout the nation. in hawaii's case, the land and conservation fund and water conservation fund has helped to maintain and support some of our world famous beaches and nature preserves. the fund expired on september
9:05 am
30 because of congressional inaction, and with that the american public has lost one of our greatest schools to ensure the protection of our public lands and waters. we need to ensure that future generations have the same opportunities we have to enjoy our nation's majestic natural beauty. i call upon our colleagues to bring forward legislation to permanently re-authorize the land and water conservation fund. mahalo. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate georgia military college on 136 years as an outstanding educational institution in georgia. on october 14, g.m.c. will celebrate its anniversary and i'm honored to represent this outstanding institution. i commend the hard work and dedication of the faculty, members, and friends who continue to make g.m.c.
9:06 am
exceptional. lastly, mr. speaker, i wish to pay tribute to georgia military college president, lieutenant general william b. caldwell iv. the educators, administrators, and alumni for their ununyielding commitment to give students superb education. g.m.c. is a scholastic institution that offers a world class experience for students and i ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating georgia military college for its outstanding achievements and to hish them continued success. with that i yield back. 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. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to discuss an example of the real life consequences of underinvesting in scientific research and development. last week with the development of hurricane joaquin, we were reminded that u.s. weather forecasting is not what it should be. system, the ur
9:07 am
g.f.s., predicted that joaquin would hit the mid-atlantic states while the european model correctly predicted that it would remain at sea. and nobody predicted the severity of the flooding that would hit south carolina. this wasn't the first time that our predictions have missed the mark. three years ago we failed to predict the path of hurricane sandy while the european model correctly identified that it would be a direct and devastating hit on new jersey. after sandy, we invested somewhat more money into the computing ability of the national weather service, but as joaquin has shown, it was too little, too late. the economic costs of unnecessary evacuations are as real as missing evacuations. scientific research requires a steady investment of time and talent to be successful. if we continue to underinvest in essential infrastructure like weather forecasting, we do it at our own peril. i urge my colleagues to heed
9:08 am
this warning and to start taking seriously the long-term investments that are our infrastructure requires. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 702. mr. lamalfa: this measure will amend the conservation asket 1975 to repeal the president's authority to restrict the export of coal, petroleum products, natural gas, and other feed stocks. the bill specifically prohibits any federal official from opposing or enforcing any restriction on the export of crude oil. why is this important? at a time when america's energy innovation is at an all-time high, we can be a helpful strategic partner to our partners overseas that need energy and don't have to turn to unreliable partners like russia, like the middle east, and others to have their energy
9:09 am
needs met. america can be helpful in that regard and therefore have stronger allies that don't have to be beholden to those other sources. it will bring jobs back home to the united states and our ever developing energy sources. mr. speaker, i urge the house today to support h.r. 702 to strengthen u.s. options, u.s. jobs, and strengthen our allies and ability to be able to serve them with our energy need -- energy development we have had in this country and therefore have a stronger bond with them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i know we have very serious matters in front of us today and facing our country as well, but i'd like to take this one minute to mark the retirement of my former boss, a guy named bill lever. who is now c.e.o. of the health system called unity point. one of the largest nonprofit, nondenominational health
9:10 am
systems in america. mrs. bustos: i met him first more than 10, 15 years ago when i wrote a profile about him as a newspaper reporter. and i knew from the very start that this is a guy who understood the needs of the community. the needs of those who needed to aguirre health care and have access to quality health care. he was my mentor, my friend, and my boss, and i wish bill all the best in his future. he and his wife are more than deserving of having this next chapter of their life be one of their most successful. thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to celebrate october as manufacturing month. established to highlight the importance of manufacturing in our nation's economy and draw attention to the many rewarding high skilled manufacturing jobs across the nation. mr. jolly: each day roughly 1,600 american manufacturers open their doors and take up
9:11 am
the important work of job creation, keeping the u.s. economy thriving and inspiring our young people to pursue careers in manufacturing and engineering. student tours like those in my home state of florida also expose young adults to careers in manufacturing industry like engineering, design, and robotics, tours led by the florida advanced technological center of excellence. i urge my colleagues to today to join me in celebrating manufacturing month and recognize the many ways manufacturing is a cornerstone of our economy. both in my home state of florida and also across the united states. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, if you look at the headlines, words like physical function, and drama focused on the capitol today. people across this country are not focused on that. they are focused on their families and their lives. if they are focused on congress t. probably has something to do with the exspiring pieces of
9:12 am
legislation that are so important. things like transportation. things like funding the government. all these critical questions in front of us yet the distraction of this leadership fight seems to be capturing our attention, but it's not capturing the attention of the american people. i look forward, mr. speaker, to return to the real business ofp governing. we have all -- of governing. we have all the trust of the american people and this thing here is a useless distraction away from the real business. let's pass the legislation we are sent here to pass and refocus on what the bread and butter issues are for the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize a high school principal of the year for 2015, grant hanvold in las vegas. i have always believed that providing the nation's youth with the quality education is
9:13 am
one of the best investments that we can make to ensure that the century is yet another american century. the principal represents the spirit and service often missed in toosm our nation's schools. he understands that educators must invest time and effort in their communities which they serve. mr. hardy: by incorporating teachers, parents, and community members into their decisionmaking process, he was able to get everyone to buy in on his vision and take pride in what they are accomplishing together. this established the culture of success at sun rise mounton that ultimately led to a remarkable 13% increase in graduation rates. congratulations to nevada's principal of the year, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. further requests for one minute speeches? pursuant to clause 12-st. of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess subject to the
9:14 am
call of the chair.
9:15 am
[inaudible]
9:16 am
>> i'm still supporting dan webster for speaker. i don't understand why we didn't go ahead and vote yesterday.
9:17 am
9:18 am
9:19 am
9:20 am
>> our camera outside the republican conference room on capitol hill for a second day now. house republicans are entering a meeting to discuss what to do about leadership elections. republican leader kevin mccarthy in a surprise move announced yesterday that he will not seek the speaker's position and the election was postponed. house speaker john boehner has submitted his resignation to be effective at the end of this month. on this morning's "washington journal," iowa republican congressman steve king discussed the g.o.p. leadership races. host: representative steve king. turmoil, chaos, peril. these are all terms that are being used to describe what happened in the house today. guest: i don't know about the peril part. a bitis turmoil, there is
9:21 am
of chaos. there is a lot of a motion going back and forth. there is a lot of confusion. when kevin mccarthy made the announcement that he would withdraw his name as a candidate for speaker, the speakers themselves, the mic system that we had in the room, were not functioning well at all. some of the people in the front of the room heard what he said. a good number of people in the back of the room knew something dramatic had happened. they were saying, "what did you say?" room whispered to each other what was happening while that happened. john boehner stepped up to the microphone and made a motion to adjourn. a gavel came down. that was the quickest conference i ever remember. it was already full of press and cameras. it was hard to get into the room. some members peeled out of the room. steve king, was it going
9:22 am
to be a secret vote? guest: i suspected it would be. i don't know for sure on this. we may have had that discussion. i think it was going to be a secret ballot. host: can you tell us how you would have voted? guest: i would have voted for dan webster. i have been talking for dan for two and a half years. he was the speaker for the house in the state of florida. he did a terrific job as the speaker of the house in florida. democrats who you never would expect would be supportive of his style and his management style were speaking in favor of him, as well as all the way across the board in the republicans. i have been talking with him about that. he decided to accept the inination and jenny were, -- january. votes a majority
9:23 am
speaker ever received since the civil war was 12. dan is making the case strongly that he would take the top down on this pyramid structure of power the way the house is being run and turn it upside down and have it the membership driven. rather than a handful of leaders making this decision, he would be bringing it directly to the floor. host: there seems to be pressure on paul ryan to run for speaker. guest: i don't know the answer. i'd like to hear how he would approach the difficulties we have ahead. paul is no doubt a capable individual. he has broad support in the conference. whether he is bought enough to win the speakership, i think that is a hard thing to know
9:24 am
seeing how kevin mccarthy's broad support disappeared. host: does this current situation in parol the gop's majority in 2016? guest: i think back on the government shutdown of 2013 on the conventional wisdom was that republicans had made a blunder for standing on principle on a constitutional issue.
9:25 am
>> if we respond to the voice of the people, we are going to be better, we are going to be better respected if this dip goes down a little bit longer and we come out of it better, we'll be rewarded for that rather than punished. host: congressman webster is staying in the race at this point? guest: i would predict he's staying in the race. i continue to encourage the members to take a look and listen to what he has to say and support dan webster for speaker. host: what's going to happen at this morning's g.o.p. conference meeting? what's the point of it. guest: it's a family discussion. that's how we bill t hopefully some families have food fights. i won't say it's never happened in our conference, don't expect that will be the case this morning. i think there will be another time of introspection and i think we'll be talking more about what we need to do to overhaul the process than who will be the next speaker. we shall see, but my advice at this point and things change and i want to listen to what all the other members have to say, my advice would be, let's
9:26 am
have the discussion. let's analyze this process. let's listen to see if there are other candidates meerging also what they might have to say. but then let's go home for a week. listen to our constituents. let this settle a little bit and come back and make a wise and prudent decision on who will be the next speaker of the house. host: representative steve king, when you hear your namesake and fellow family member, peter king, from new york say this was a victory for the crazies, what's your reaction? guest: i notice that he and i were both wearing a bright kelly green tie yesterday. we got the dress code memo, anyway. i don't think there's anything constructive about throwing those kind of allegations around. i resisted saying those things about the folks that yesterday were advocating we needed to pick a speaker that the democrats could vote for. that's part of that group of people. i'm not saying that came out of pete king. he's a friend and we get along well. but if anybody ever asks me to tone it down, i suppose they ought to be asking some of the
9:27 am
folks on that side of the argument also tone it down. host: steve king, republican, iowa. your calls. lois in tennessee. democrat. hi. caller: good morning. they kicked that man out because he told the truth about benghazi. that's all it is. they want someone up there who is going to say what they say. and another thing, please, may i say this, they are sitting there arguing among themselves about a speaker. they want to get rid of boehner. they are not saying up there, doing work for the people. there's people out there who's hurting. unemployment checks are running out. children need food. you republicans are not saying anything. my daughter's one of them. had worked all her life ever since she was 16 years old. laid off now. got children. and unemployment here in tennessee, you just get it for six months. what about the people here? you-all not talking about the jobs. you up there arguing among each other. you won't sign any bills to
9:28 am
help the people. no transportation bills. you sit up there like the rest of them. some democrats, too. i'm not going to get on you. but what about the people here in america that's starving? host: lois. we got the point. representative king. guest: i read some of those websites i think you're reading, too. there's always two sides to this, but we wanted to run this government under regular order. we wanted to be able to have the committees working the way they are supposed to so that -- this constitutional republic, constitution guarantees a republican form of government. that means that you elect representatives from your district and they have an obligation to you. and that is they owe you their best judgment and their best effort. and part of that is to listen to their constituents. part of that is to gather all the information they can, use their best judgment to pull it all together. take the best ideas they can. bring them here to the washington, d.c., and let those best ideas compete with the other members' best ideas. we wanted to be able to do our 12 appropriations bills so
9:29 am
everybody had open rules. and they could bring their amendments in and it would eventually be the voice of the people that would be signed by the president. instead the president said, i demand that you fund planned parenthood or i will shut the government down. we saw amendment after mendment that was -- >> how's the pressure on you right now? >> the pressure on me sim' going to be late for a meeting with elijah cummings. i don't want to be late for a with elijah. >> what's it going to take paul ryan -- >> you have to ask him. >> is it just about his wife and family? >> when you say just about, i mean come on, man. that's pretty important. just about family. that's the most important thing. >> what happens next? what do you guys do next? >> speaker's going to appoint a new election day. >> any idea when it might be? what would it take --
9:30 am
>> voice of god. >> do you want the job? >> no. >> does anybody? >> we'll find out. i think paul could get everybody. >> potentially could be a candidate. >> you have to ask darrell issa hat. >> support who? >> darrell issa. >> you have to ask him. >> speaker boehner going to stay on, then, until you wrap it up? any idea? >> i don't know what he's going to set the due date. see you. >> again, house republicans are meeting on capitol hill to just
9:31 am
their path forward to choosing a new speaker. we return now to our segment from "washington journal" where iowa republican congressman steve king is discussing the leadership race. these conservatk to tell you about how reagan produced spending, but -- heuced spending, but tripled our national debt. 'sst: i am on john; side. on september 30 passed a continuing resolution. they kept the government running. the next morning, the white house said we now have a debt ceiling crisis coming up and the dropdead deadline is november 5.
9:32 am
here's what i would like to do, john. i would like to create a constitutional amendment that would require a balanced budget. i think your father would have appreciated such a move. i would like to see it sent to the states for ratification as a condition of raising the national debt. if they ratify a balanced budget resolution, they would say, we do not want to see you in the red any longer. i think we should do that. we have not had a balanced budget under this president. edwin christian tweets to you that if the freedom caucus can shut down the house, it will never run under regular order. guest: i am the chairman of
9:33 am
we will work with the freedom caucus and the liberty caucus and the tea party caucus. >> any idea when that election will be? >> nope. >> is there any talk about interim speaker options? >> none. >> what was the applause for? >> boehner, mccarthy, scalise. >> what? >> happy they're there. trying to move forward. >> they kept using the word chaos yesterday. what was the state of affairs in there today? >> wasn't chaos today. it was about the floor schedule and things coming up. >> anything about the
9:34 am
eadership? [inaudible] >> going to have to wait for the kids to grow up? >> is there anyone else in the conference who can get 218? >> i'm not sure. >> not sure. >> what happens next? >> we are voting today. the rest is up in the air. i got to run. thank you. thanks a lot. >> can i talk to you about the highway bill? >> his picture looks different than him. >> but haven't talked to him or listened how that impacted them. there is also a story out there there was an email that had a significant amount of that information that went into many of the members.
9:35 am
so -- if you're kevin mccarthy, to try to measure the impact of that is really difficult to do. it's kind of like trying to quell a rumor if you go around and say this rumor's not true to someone who says what rumor? i didn't hear that. now you have to explain the rumor. now you may have inadd vertyerntly spread that rumor. history will probably write this it has a significant impact. it may well have had. there were other issues along the way, too, or there wouldn't have been such an effort to support the other two candidates. host: this is a tweet for you from sandra. is there any plan to defund sanctuary cities? guest: sandra, there's a plan to defund sanctuary cities. i brought multiple amendments in the appropriations bills. those amendments, each one i offered, as i recall, this is over a number of years, has passed. but it's also been killed in the negotiation process that took it down to a continuing resolution or omnibus spending
9:36 am
bill. where we sit now we are still in crisis management of government. we are still in a place where we don't have an opportunity to argue for these amendments in any place other than a conference committee that's negotiating these things with the senate. and of course the white house will be at that table, at least in some form. so i think we need to accelerate that effort. i'm thankful for the presidential candidates that have made this case. we see now that i have at least 22 counties in my state that have decided that they are not going to honor i.c.e. detainer orders. that makes them sanctuary counties as well. i'm very troubled by the erosion of the rule of law that's come about because of sanctuary cities. now whenever i see a picture show up on the internet of a young lady with bright blue eyes and long brown hair, i always think of kate steinle. i think her image tells us what we need do. host: mitch calling in from delaware on the democrats line. caller: good morning, representative. thank you c-span.
9:37 am
i appreciate your program. i wanted to thank you, representative king, for all that you have done so far. i'm what they call a tea party democrat. i'm a minority conservative in the state, but i live in a very conservative county of three county state of delaware. >> going to run for speaker? did he address the conference? >> what's the mood in there? >> very positive. >> how did it get to there? >> ryan address the conference? >> no, he did not. >> 218 votes? >> yes. i think he could. >> who did address the conference today? >> what's the purpose of today's meeting? to do what? >> to move forward. we are going to have discussion on changes in rules, for
9:38 am
example. we don't know yet. we are having a discussion on hat. >> -- paul ryan? >> i'm sure we will be united as we move forward. paul ryan did not address. not yet. speaker and majority leader and the majority whip. >> what did mccarthy say? >> very positive. very optimistic. about moving forward in a united fashion. >> what did he say about his decision? >> again, we are following events on capitol hill. a live picture here outside the
9:39 am
republican conference room. where house republicans are meeting to discuss what to do about leadership elections. republican leader kevin mccarthy announced yesterday that he will not speak the speaker's position and the election was postponed. outgoing speaker john boehner was to step down in three weeks on october 30. guest: the republicans in the senate didn't blow the place up. now if they make exceptions for something like the iranian deal and declare it to be a treaty and require that broader agreement not only the one under corker-cardin, but the full iranian agreement just simply declare it to be a treaty, asserts their constitutional authority, require a 2/3 majority, that might be what saves millions of potential deaths. i think it's worth that. i want to have some respect for the institution in the senate. they are the ones that will
9:40 am
make that decision and do i lobby them a little bit from time to time. host: we are talking with representative steve king, republican of iowa. sioux city, mason city, some of the cities in his district. seventh ently in his term on the judiciary, agriculture, and small business committees. terry is calling in on our republican line from dexter, iowa. dexter in your district? guest: dexter used to be. it's right on the edge of my district. >> people during the break and try to figure out what we need to do to get this country moving again. i would hope not. hacking words, asking for integrity creates so much trouble. i don't think so to be honest with you. it >> when it would be? >> ryan --
9:41 am
>> because of your -- >> then that's their decision to interpret it that way. this is something that i think is important to the american people. anybody in leadership, male or female, should be a man or woman of integrity. that is nothing personally about anybody. >> that's an assumption when you reference livingston, it has an effect of -- >> i was here at the time. it was total chaos here. i don't want to see that happen again. >> members urging paul ryan to run? >> no. there's nothing about the next speaker or anything. it's about taking this in a slow way and see if we can find common ground. that's going to be what we need to work on. rule changes, changes to the rules and things like that. >> what did boehner tell the conference? >> he's going to be there until we elect the new speaker.
9:42 am
>> is that ok with the freedom caucus members? >> i would think so. i think right now we need to. > have you spoken to -- >> you don't do it if ryan doesn't run. that's basically where you are? >> paul ryan is the person that needs to do it. we just got to wait on him to make a decision what he's going to do. >> what did he say in there? >> he hasn't spoken yet. i've got a benghazi thing i'm going to. >> do you think paul ryan is the only one who can get to 218? >> absolutely. right now. > why is that? >> why is he going to get to
9:43 am
218? he was a vice presidential candidate. he puts forth great ideas about restructuring the taxes. everybody trusts him. >> are you going to run? you won't run if he runs. >> more house g.o.p. members arriving for a closed door meeting on capitol hill. the house republicans are trying to discuss what to do about leadership elections. following yesterday's surprise announcement by republican leader kevin mccarthy that he will not seek the speaker's position. house speaker john boehner has submitted his resignation and that was to be effective the end of this month.
9:44 am
guest: i don't want to diminish anyone. i admire and appreciate them all. most of them are friends, by the way. so i want to see this process -- >> some of us would like to go meplace -- >> prayerful. >> do you think anybody's in line to get 218 right now? >> you're going to have to wait until that's over. >> did boehner stay he'll stay in as long as necessary? >> we are not supposed to talk about what people say. i'm not going to break that. >> the conference won't be without a speaker. >> that's obvious.
9:45 am
we are starting later. everybody including me has planes to catch. > still just the 10 amendment? >> it's the same 10 that were published. there are no new ones. >> nobody else announced himself today as far as you heard? >> we don't talk about what we talk about in there. thank you.
9:46 am
>> what was it like today? >> the conference is still going on. >> how do we get the pep rally going on?
9:47 am
guest: we saw efforts on the part of the rnc at the national level to undermine the ames straw poll. i went in there and propped it up slodges i could. the central committee made the decision and had to. they pulled the plug on it sometime in midsummer. i said then, if they are able to plow throw the straw poll, the next target will be to take iowa out of first place and the first in the nation caucus. those words are clear. that's the next agenda, i predicted it six months ago. this confirms what i said. so we are going to have to have a talk. we'll see who calls each one first. host: kim calling in from wisconsin. independent line. go ahead. caller: i have a couple of comments and then i have a question for you. i was listening a couple questions ago you were talking and saying about taking things
9:48 am
back to your district and talking to the people there. my whole thing is is that my son and i have been watching c-span and you have more and more republicans win 75% of the general public agree with some things basically standing on the floor saying that they are voting this way even though their constituents are saying this. because they think that their constituents don't have all the information. you're trying to tell me that the 25% that are against something all live in your district? and then, two, my question would be is how are we supposed to teach children about the constitution in this day and age? because, one, god wasn't originally put into the original constitution. it was added later. and then if you look at wisconsin, which you should because you live next door to
9:49 am
us, you-dirnl' sure you realize every time scott walk irdoesn't agree with something, he has the constitution changed to go with what he wants, the state one. if you can comment on these two i would appreciate it, thank you. guest: i think i missed the first question. i did hear the part about meaning of the constitution and that if scott walker disagrees with the constitution then he has the constitution changed. i don't know about that, but i know that scott walker can't change the constitution without the supermajority will of the people. i say at least the will of the people in the state of wisconsin. that's a fairly high bar, requiring everyone to vote similar to iowa's constitution. we don't change it very often. here, i'm bound by t i take an oath to support and defend the constitution. and the president takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend it, as well as it's in the constitution he's required to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. >> certainly he would be a very credible candidate. >> include you and the other
9:50 am
members? >> i beg your pardon? >> do you think he would be someone that would be the influencive figure? >> well, i don't want to speak for anybody else, but he certainly has always been one that's been opened to having a good rigorous debate. >> would he be a better speaker than speaker boehner? >> you know, it's not up for me to make those kind of professments. i really have a markup, guys. i'm not trying to be rude. i have an amendment that i have to do. >> is this a victory for the freedom caucus? anything to do with the freedom caucus? >> trying to make sure that we have a leader that will unify. >> what do you think there's two tea dee fecks from the freedom caucus? what does that say? >> i think it says there are all kinds of opinions and 435 members, they will have different sets of priorities that change from time to time.
9:51 am
i certainly think there's a path of support for anybody that's willing to address the rules and policies and procedures. guest: according to the optimum population balance so that there wouldn't be a distortion in one member that's in a state house of representatives or the state senate having a more constituents than another. so they force the redistrictsing after the census in the states the census that takes place every 10 years. at that time they started the gerry mannering in the states to be able to build republican districts and democrat
9:52 am
districts. and republican and democrats sat down and cut the deal so he they would have safe seats. that has further polarized our state legislatures and that is also how congressional seats in most states are determined. and that further polarizes. add into that came the districts for especially african-american districts, the courts have concluded, implied strongly, that nonafrican-american can't do a very good job of representing african-americans. so they drew black districts. that further polarized because it was based on race. in identify way we have a terrific redistricting law. you can't consider the residence of the incumbent. they must be contiguous. you can't consider the voter registration. it is drawn by three nonperson -- nonpartisan people. so we end up with districts that are not as polarized. when you look at congress, there are people that are -- that have strong republican
9:53 am
districts. people that have strong democrat districts. and it doesn't reflect this mix of people that you see in your place in wisconsin you wonder how it can be so polarized. that's a dysfunctional set up that grew from the 1961 supreme court case. and then the political bargains that took place have accelerated the gerrymandering. i'm glad i got a chance to speak to that. i don't see a window to change it and would if i could. host: matt sweets 234 dan webster's gerrymandered district will be going through court ordered redrawing soon. >> i am not a candidate for speaker. paul ryan is not a candidate for speaker. the difference is there is a resounding amount of support in the conference for paul ryan to agree to be the speaker. and i'm part of that team that's trying to get him to be a speaker. all of us have to consider serving if paul won't. right now we are campaigning for paul ryan. >> paul ryan has said again and
9:54 am
again and again doesn't want this job. what makes you think he might reconsider? mr. issa: paul ryan answered the call when he was called by mitt romney to consider being vice president. i believe he's going home this weekend to soul search with his family about whether or not he can, in fact, accept this job. a job he doesn't want. he isn't seeking, but is seeking him. >> can you describe the kind of pressure that is being placed on paul ryan right now to run? mr. issa: i did everything except carry his gym bag this morning trying to get him to do t the fact is it paul ryan is the right man right now. he has moderate support and he very clearly has conservative support. members of the freedom caucus have come to me one after another saying let paul know we would be with him. that's a very good sign after the strained relations that john boehner has had with that same caucus. >> this is a very prestigious job. congress is filled with ambitious people. why do so few people want it? mr. issa: this is a body of
9:55 am
great power. and many, many people who want all the power, all the accolades, but not all the responsibility. the job of speaker is all responsibility and a lot less power than you think. john boehner had all the responsibility and often did not have the power to get us to 218. it is the real challenge. you can talk about herding cats, my understanding is a little catnip or fish, and you can make cats go the same direction. it's not that easy here. you have people of individual convictions and beliefs and to get them to come to consensus or compromise is difficult. paul ryan's somebody who can do that. it's the reason that many of us continue to ask him to go from no to maybe and maybe to yes. >> you said it's like being tarred and feathered every day? mr. issa: it's like the great honor of making a speech before you are tarred and feathered. it's the single point of being criticized just as the president is. most things that go wrong in
9:56 am
the administration are not the fault of the president. most things that go wrong in congress are not the fault of the speaker. but they take the brunt of the blame. thank you. >> you tried to carry his gym bag this morning? what did he say to you? mr. issa: he needs a new gym bag. >> maybe you can purchase one. mr. issa: i offered to give him a similar one that i have. he is more humble than most members of congress. he's smarter than most members of congress. and quite candidly he's dedicated to the work he's doing. i think at the end of the day, or end of the week paul ryan will be our speaker presumptive. thank you. >> i think we'll have additional candidates. i'm not afraid of competition. i say there should be more people not less.
9:57 am
i look forward to that discussion. actively be campaigning. ut myself out there. inaudible] >> i think the speaker made the right decision. it caught everybody with shock and surprise. under the rules the speaker can postpone an election. >> what about an interim speaker? >> i didn't hear any of that iscussion. [inaudible] >> he would be somebody that i would support. i would love it if he did it. >> would you drop out? >> he is a drumbeat in consistency in saying he's not going to do t >> would you drop out if paul
9:58 am
ryan got into the race? >> of course i would support t he would be the person i could get excited about. part of the reason i got in the race is people like ryan wouldn't step up to do t i see myself as part of that solution. i would support the nominee. i will have -- >> would you run against him? >> no. i would not run against paul ryan. try to be as clear as i can. if paul ryan gets in the race. i'm a huge fan of paul ryan. i would support paul ryan. i would hope he could do t he says that he won't. we've got to get somebody who wants to do it and will fight for it and make the most of it. maybe his approach changes, but he is certainly, in my mind, the most qualified person to do it. and i hope would he do it. >> have you talked to him today? >> i haven't seen him. >> does speaker boehner still expect to step down by the end of the month? >> the speaker is clear he wanted to get through this process before the end of the month.
9:59 am
i got a markup. i'm glad you're all going to come to it. t will be a great one. >> right side, please. >> thank you. >> any plans for a retreat of the conference? you guys going to go off somewhere and talk about this? >> i didn't hear that. maybe that's what they are going to do but i didn't hear that today. >> thank you. all right. thank you, guys. thank you. >> i got mr. chaffetz here. >> you got to go. i got to go. got a markup here. trying to unify as opposed to any individual candidate that we have.
10:00 am
policy as well. the general consensus is members are going to go home this week for the columbus day recess, let everything cool off. paul ryan is not doing it. i'd support him for being vice president. paul ryan is wonderful. he's got to want to want it. he's got to have that internal discussion with himself and his kids. it's a hard, hard job. >> we're coming to you live right now so just hang out if you would. >> if paul ryan gets in you'll
10:01 am
get out? mr. chaffetz: if paul ryan gets in i'll support him and put all y weight behind paul ryan. i got to keep going because i have a markup that starts at 10:00 here. we're doing great. this is a healthy part of the process. he keeps saying he won't do it. i believe him. >> [inaudible] mr. chaffetz: let's see what paul ryan says. i would love to see him and support paul ryan. >> what would be your basis for pulling out if he gets in? mr. chaffetz: careful. >> how much support do you have at the moment? mr. chaffetz: we'll start this out as a conference. the drumbeat i heard in there, let's get it right rather than get it done fast. i think that's great. >> would you still run against
10:02 am
- would you still run? mr. mica: i'm getting in. >> it's ryan specifically? >> [inaudible] mr. issa: i hope he'll make the decision to run. if he doesn't run i'll ask him
10:03 am
to reconsider. if he doesn't run i'll ask him to reconsider. then and only then we'll talk about it. >> so you're leading the door open? mr. issa: right now, i'm going to keep working on paul ryan. thank you. >> did you speak to him personally? mr. issa: i did. >> [inaudible] >> even if chairman ryan -- [inaudible] mr. gohmert: i love paul. he's one of the smartest guys here. back in 2008 there were a number of us that committed that we simply could not ever support a speaker who fought so hard to pass the wall street bailout. thank you. >> would he be a -- would he be very different than speaker boehner, do you think?
10:04 am
epome gnome i'm sure he would. >> my concerns are not ideological. >> would you support mr. ryan? >> i'm supporting daniel webster. instead, the economy is being restr >> the house has gaveled back in so we're going to return to live coverage of the floor of the house. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] companies are being forced to cut back their work force.
10:05 am
lifting the ban on crude oil exports will mean new jobs for mississippians that will allow them to support theirs families. i urge my colleagues -- their families. i urge my colleagues to vote and support h.r. 6702 and for american jobs. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi yield back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: mr. speaker, i think we go to the minority. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey nnl is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to h.r. 702, a poorly crafted bill that needlessly and recklessly sweeps away 40 years of critical energy protections for national security, our economy, consumers, and the environment. h.r. 702 is a blunt object that doesn't just undermine current protective authorities related to crude oil, it also prohibits any federal official from taking any action at any time if that action either restricts or enforces a restriction on
10:06 am
the export of oil. the term restriction is undefined and potentially dangerous in scope. the bill will also override any other law that would impose any restriction by any federal official on exports. that means that the bill does nothing to preserve any environment or safety statutes or regulations an doesn't even preserve the defense production act, one of the most important tools any president has to ensure our national energy security in the face of a threat.threat. let's be clear, mr. chairman, the president has stated he will veto this bill. further, any legislation of this nature is completely unnecessary since the president already has the authority to ease or even remove restrictions on crude oil exports and the obama administration has taken major steps to exercise that authority by approving crude oil swaps with mexico and applications to the export of. the bottom line, mr. chairman, is it is imperative for
10:07 am
congress to consider a host of factors before we lift the current restrictions and certainly if we are to completely dismantle our nation's ability to restrict oil exports as proposed by h.r. 702. first, mr. chairman, there are consumer impacts, especially related to the price of crude oil and gasoline. a recent study found that changes to u.s. oil export policy will have little to no impact on the future price of oil. what we do know is that changes in our crude oil policy will lead to a significant payday for oil producers. with increases in annual profits aproaching $30 billion by 2025. next, there are the impacts on our refinery capacity and associated jobs. well paying middle class jobs that have grown over the past few years due to increased production. unrestricted exports of crude oil puts those jobs in jeopardy and could mean exporting those jobs and losing out on critical investments in future refining capacity. and finally, mr. chairman, there are, of course, the environmental and climate impacts of lifting the export
10:08 am
ban. energy policy is fundamentally linked to environmental policy. each is a facet of the other. increasing crude oil exports means increasing domestic production and its impacts on climate change, public health, worker safety, property owners, and protection of our drinking water supplies. as i said before, this legislation eagerly embraces short-term profits and benefits without understanding or even considering the costs of such a major action. we simply can't afford to make that mistake. we should ensure we fully understand and consider the enduring consequences of our action and choose the cleanest path st sustainable forward. i don't believe, mr. chairman, that the potential impacts of h.r. 702 on national security, on the economy, on consumers and on the environment can be considered acceptable. so, mr. chairman, increased crude exports certainly help oil companies. it's a bonanza for the oil companies, but without any guaranteed benefits for
10:09 am
consumers. i urge my colleagues to join me and the president in saying no to this legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: i have a parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barton: my understanding in general debate, the proponents have 30 minutes and then the opponents have 30 minutes. is that correct? the chair: on this bill, yes. mr. barton: i would scuck unanimous consent, mr. speaker, that mr. cuellar of texas, the original democrat sponsor, have six minutes of proponents time to control as he sees fit. the chair: the chair cannot entertain a unanimous request to change the times of debate. mr. barton: additional parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. mr. barton: could the chair
10:10 am
educate the illiterate member from texas on how i could give mr. cuellar time he may control on his side? if i can't yield it nanimously, how can i do that? the chair: the gentleman from texas may yield time from his own time to engage in debate. the gentleman from texas can yield to other members on other sides. mr. barton: continue the parliamentary inquiry, if i do that can he reserve part of that time or does he have to se it all in one slot? the chair: the other gentleman from texas would not control the time. mr. barton: he could not reserve any of it? the chair: correct. mr. barton: thank you. with that, mr. speaker, i want to yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from
10:11 am
pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: i thank the chairman. i thank my colleague for the time to speak on this bill. which i wholeheartedly support because ending this oil export ban will not only boost our economy, it would also improve our foreign policy. i also rise with hesitation to a proposed amendment that would remove a provision of this bill boosting payments to the 60 ships of our maritime security fleet. these ships are essential in transporting cargo to the men and women of our armed forces who are serving overseas in harm's way. as evidence of this, 90% of all cargo moved to iraq and afghanistan have been transported on these privately owned ships. as of right now, mr. speaker, the stipend provided by the government is too low to make this program viable for those who have stepped up to defend our nation against foreign threats. without this increase, it is likely that participants will drop out of the program. this obviously is a national security threat. it is estimated that for the government to replicate this
10:12 am
program it would cost more than $50 billion in taxpayer money. this program saves money while enhancing our security and i encourage my colleagues to avoid supporting this amendment but voting yes to lift this outdated oil export ban. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time of the the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. doyle: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this bill. i have been here in congress for 21 years, and during that time we always hear talk about we want to be energy independent in the united states. p my colleagues on both sides of the aisle -- my colleagues on both sides of the aisle always talk about the dream of energy independence where we don't have to depend on any other country for our oil. it would change policy in the middle east. and it would dramatically improve our national security. well, the bad news is, mr. speaker, we are not energy independent.
10:13 am
we use 17 million barrels of oil a day. but we only produce nine million. which means we are still importing nearly half of all the oil we use. now, here's the good news, mr. speaker. horizontal drilling and all this oil we are finding in the shale formations gives us a chance to truly be energy independent. we could produce an additional nine million barrels a day, and we wouldn't have to depend on any other country in the world for our oil. all we have to do is produce what we have in our own country and make sure that we have refinery capacity to take care of this crude and we are energy independent. so the question is, mr. speaker, why aren't we investing in our own domestic refringery capacity to keep high-paying jobs here in the united states in the refinery industry, in the maritime trades, and in manufacturing like steel making. why aren't we doing that for
10:14 am
america while enhancing america's security? we had the commander, former commander of the u.s.s. cole testify before our committee. he highlighted the significant national security risks associated with greater oil imports. he said too many times in recent history the u.s. has made oil deals with hostile or unfriendly governments that actually threaten our foreign policy and our national security objective. lifting the export ban will undermine u.s. power projection capabilities by undermining the competitiveness of our u.s. refineries. do we really want to undermine the u.s. military? and then we hear the story that somehow lifting this ban can going to help our european allies. because it will reduce their dependence on russian oil. that's a myth, too, as commander lipert testified before our committee, the primary recipient of this u.s. exported oil is going to be
10:15 am
asia, specifically china. so we want to export u.s. oil to china and still have to import oil from countries that aren't necessarily friendly to us. why would we do that? mr. speaker, house bill 702 is deeply flawed because it doesn't allow for any future oversight of oil exports under any circumstances. even if there is an oil spike or shortage, there is no safety valve to ensure that we have enough of this critical resource for our armed forces, our industries, and our constituents. in conclusion, mr. speaker, this bill undermines our national security and we are still importing an incredible amount of oil. this just defies common sense and we should reject it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. . mr. barton: i yield to the
10:16 am
gentlewoman from california, mrs. walters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. walters: i rise -- in 975, president ford signed the bill into law. much has changed since that time. today we need an energy policy that aligns with our current economic and political climate. the united states is the largest petroleum and natural gas producer in the world. our self-imposed export ban doesn't make since and does nothing but hinder economic growth. if the ban is lifted this year, over 57,000 new supply chain jobs will be created in my home state of california by 2018, and nationwide nearly 450,000 new jobs would be created. having the option to put u.s. crude oil on the world market would benefit americans. lifting the ban would create jobs, strengthen the u.s. economy and help reduce our trade deficit.
10:17 am
it would also provide the international marketplace with more options in turn limiting the ability of energy commodities to be used as political weapons. it is important to note that this bill doesn't require the u.s. to export crude oil. it provides options for those that need it the most. i ask my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, we already used some time so i'd like to reserve and have the republicans have another speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: at the request of congressman cuellar, who is my original democratic sponsor, i yield one minute to mr. scott f georgia. mr. hinojosa of texas. i see mr. hinojosa on the
10:18 am
floor. i'd like to yield to mr. scott r mr. hinojosa for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. hinojosa: i rise today in support as a co-sponsor of h.r. 702 which lifts the ban on crude oil exports. modern advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have allowed the united states access to large deposits of crude oil and natural gas. last year our country produced over 150 million barrels of crude oil and that number is steadily increasing. the crude oil in our deposits is lighter and sweeter than the traditional heavy crude oil our refineries process. the export ban hinders our access to international markets that need the sweeter type of crude and that have the refinement infrastructure for it. i am convinced that lifting the
10:19 am
outdated crude oil export ban will create jobs and economic opportunities for our communities as we strive for greater energy independence. in the great state of texas, lifting the export ban is estimated to increase the annual g.d.p. by over $7.1 billion and create over 40,000 new supply chain jobs, according to the government accountability office, removing export restrictions will create employment -- i ask for 30 seconds additional. mr. barton: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds on behalf of congressman cuellar. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. hinojosa: according to the government accountability office, removing export restrictions will create employment opportunities, expand trade and lower gasoline prices. the economic and political landscape has evolved since the ban's inception in the 1970's, and i'm confident that now is the time to repeal the ban on
10:20 am
the exports of crude oil to increase our economic energy competitiveness. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 702 and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to h.r. 702. in the past 10 years, the united states has undergone an energy revolution. it has far exceeded analysis and prediction. the success in this field has materialized in the jobs in our district in the houston district both in the chemical and refining industries. the price of oil dropped from $100 a barrel to $45 a barrel. gasoline prices have fallen from $4 per gallon to less than $2 in houston. i represented our refinery complexes for many years. all of this benefited our economy and the consumer.
10:21 am
unfortunately, the success has brought hardship on the upstream producers. the energy sector, which led our country out of the recession, is now laid off -- has now laid off approximately 150,000 folks. bloomberg estimated 40% of these layoffs were in texas. i know the oil industry is facing a difficult time. that's why it's difficult for me to oppose this bill today. i support crude oil exports while protecting our domestic manufacturing jobs, including refining. we have the resource. we should use as much as possible here at home and sell what's left. i'm a legislator that would like to solve this problem and i like working across party lines to get results. i worked with my good friend joe barton many years in congress. in fact, we sat together at the texas a&m football game until we -- they beat mississippi state, we sat across -- way
10:22 am
apart. so we didn't jinx them. and for months i talked with representative barton about the crude export issue. the crude export ban was set in place in 1975. in the 1970's the united states were in a tough spot and we put the ban in place to protect our national interest. that's more than 40 years of legislative history, and before we throw out -- that away, we should make sure we have a policy that makes sense for the next 40 years. i'm hoping we could craft a bill that would create a process within the department of commerce that would establish authorization and reporting requirements for crude oil. crude oil's a valuable national resource, and the government should have some oversight as to where and when we send it overseas. we export liquefied natural gas through a process developed through the department of energy. i have not been a fan of that process, but we worked to improve it. we should have some of the basic requirements of the department of commerce to oversee crude. unlike l.n.g., crude is a raw
10:23 am
commodity. unlike refined products, crude doesn't have the added value. our refiners add value to that and we export that refined product so there are jobs created in our economy. building l.n.g. -- exporting refined product creates good jobs and lots of capital expenditure. if exporting crude is the right policy let's do it correctly. let's maximize the benefits for the united states. let's make sure that the u.s. crude doesn't end up in the hands of north korea or other foes. know where this resource is going, how much is being sent and how often it is being sent there. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to place the remainder of my statement into the record and oppose the bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: mr. speaker, i'm going to yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, for a minute, but i want to recognize myself for 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. barton: to respond to what congressman green just said.
10:24 am
the whole concept of this bill is to let willing buyers interact with willing sellers in a free market, transparentction fashion. if you subject the bill to some sort of discretionary permitting -- as mr. green's amendment would have done, you gut the bill. you desteroid entire purpose of the bill. as much as i respect my good friend from houston, texas, i respectfully had to object to that amendment. with that i want to yield one minute to the gentleman from the garden state of new jersey, mr. lance, a member of the committee. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. lance: thank you, mr. speaker, and i commend chairman emeritus barton's tremendous leadership on this issue. i rise today in strong support of the bill, bipartisan in nature, which will create thousands of american jobs, generate billions of dollars in revenue to states and locales and use our nation's natural resources as a counterbalance to the rogue actors currently dominating world oil markets.
10:25 am
american energy brings security and independence to the world and jobs and economic development to the united states. it makes no sense that iranian oil will soon be permitted to flow, but american-made energy is left untapped. it's time to end the outdated restrictions on the export of u.s. oil and instead protect and create thousands of u.s. jobs, help keep prices at the pump affordable for all consumers across the country. american energy brings growth, osperity, security and independence to the united states and our allies. our nation should counter iran and create thousands of u.s. jobs in the process. please vote for h.r. 702. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, can i ask how much time there is on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has 20 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas has 24 minutes remaining. mr. pallone: would the gentleman like to have another
10:26 am
speaker? mr. barton: if it makes my friend from new jersey happy -- the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: i'd like to recognize an original co-sponsor and strong proponent of this bill, the gentleman from the great state of new mexico, mr. pearce for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for one minute. mr. pearce: i thank the chairman for yielding and appreciate his work on this important proposition. for almost my entire life, the nation has worked under prevailing science that said that we have reached peak energy, we are out, that we have to plan for the future because we have no more oil. two years ago a discovery was found in new mexico that will provide more oil from that one find than has produced in its state through the entire geographic part of new mexico. the science was a lie. we are finding oil. what's happening right now is that the refineries use heavy
10:27 am
sour crude. the new finds in shale are producing light sweet which is more valuable. it's easier to refine, and yet that light sweet oil is sitting in the pipelines in new mexico trying to get to houston. it's selling at $17 below the market cost because there is no destination. the baltics said they would use our oil, they'd put our workers back to work, but this law prevents it, the law in place. 702 simply says open that door and put americans back to work. americans driving trucks, americans at the convenient stores, americans everywhere get the jobs. the idea that this somehow undercuts jobs is absolutely a frivolous idea to present on this house floor. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from illinois. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. rush: i want to thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, over the past
10:28 am
couple months i have worked tirelessly to find a reasonable compromise with the sponsor of h.r. 702, my friend and colleague, mr. barton. that would allow me and others with similar constituencies to support this bill. although i share the concerns of many on -- of my democratic colleagues of how this bill might impact the environment and climate change, i have always stated that i believe in the all-of-the-above energy approach that balances environmental concerns and economic opportunities. mr. speaker, yesterday in the rules committee, i advocated for an open rule process that would have allowed democrats to offer amendments that will reflect priorities and concerns of the minority party. fact, mr. speaker, i myself
10:29 am
submitted an amendment that would have expanded access for minority and women-owned firms to more fully participate in the energy supply chain which we know will be greatly enhanced if the export ban is lifted. mr. speaker, although my friends in the environmental community wouldn't agree in my district we say oil is not just a commodity. oil is indeed an economic opportunity. mr. speaker, my most pressing concern is making sure upfront that minority firms would be a part of the pipeline economy and would directly benefit from vendor and contracting opportunities that lifting this
10:30 am
ban would create. instead, mr. speaker, despite positive rhetoric from members of the majority party, a closed rule was adopted, and while my comprehensive amendment was not allowed, members are asked to vote now on a -- on trojan horse amendments that would do nothing to lifting -- actually lifting benefits for minorities and women, as my far-reaching amendment was designed to do. . rather than showing the majority party from the charges of creating a multibillion dollar boondoggle for the energy industry, today there's not much in this bill as currently drafted that i can point to that's really benefiting all segments of the american population.
10:31 am
as i have said time and time nd time again cut us in or cut it out. cut us in or cut it out. cut women in or cut it out. cut minorities in or cut it out. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pallone: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. the gentleman yields back? the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: we'll put the gentleman from illinois down as undecided on the bill. i'd like to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman who is the chairman of the republican study committee and member of the committee, home of the fighting texas aggies, mr. flores, of brian college station, texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. flores: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 702. h.r. 702 results in five key
10:32 am
benefits. number one, it benefits the american consumer with resulting overall lower energy prices. this particularly benefits lower income and lower middle income americans providing greater financial security for these hardworking families. number two, it benefits the american producer and allows them to further reinvest in our domestic energy infrastructure, furthering our energy security and american jobs. number three, it benefits our geopolitical standing and strengthens ties with our global friends and allies in hurts countries like russia, iran, and venezuela who are opposed to american interests around the wormed. number four, it benefits the down stream refining community as lower price also stimulate volume demand for refined products. this gives capital to higher skilled american workers and reinvest in their operations. number five, it strengthens our national defense by enharsing the maritime security program which supports a robust merchant marine for the use of
10:33 am
our military during times international crisis. these are five critical reasons why everybody wins after we lift the ban. the president's threatened to veto this commonsense bill. and hardworking american families all over this country should ask it, mr. president, why are you putting the interest of our hardworking families -- excuse me, of iranian terrorists ahead of the interest of hardworking american families? i strongly urge my colleagues to reject the amash amendment and support h.r. 702. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time of the the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for three minutes. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank our ranking member. i oppose this legislation for several reasons. first, except in very narrow circumstances the bill does not allow any limits, not any limits on exports of domestic
10:34 am
oil regardless of potential threats to our national security. and that is our top responsibility as members. our national security. for decades there's been a bipartisan commitment in congress and several administrations to energy independence and reducing our reliance on foreign oil. given the continued dependence of our economy and military on oil, energy independence remains critical to our national defense. but with little consideration of any national security implications, this bill allows unlimited exports of a critical strategic resource. the united states still imports 26% of the oil we consume, and remains the world's top importer. every barrel exported under this bill would have to be replaced by a barrel imported from elsewhere, leaving us more reliant on foreign countries.
10:35 am
the bill allows the president to limit exports only if he declares an emergency under the national emergencies act or the international emergency economic powers act, or if he is directed by the international energy agency to respond to an international supply crisis. outside of these narrow circumstances, the bill permits no restrictions on exports of crude oil. this means strategic considerations, such as decreasing our reliance on imports from unfriendly regimes can play no part in deciding whether to allow exports. i don't think that's a good deal. at all. the bill also has drastic or will have drastic impacts on the u.s. shipbuilding industry. tanker fleet, and refineries, all of which are critical to our national defense. congress has recognized for
10:36 am
nearly 100 years that it benefits our national security to maintain a robust domestic shipbuilding industry and commercial shipping fleet. for example, crude exports from alaska, which were legalized in 1995, must be carried on u.s. flag vessels crewed by americans. this bill contains no requirement that exports be carried on u.s. flat tankers. under current law, the president can allow exports of crude oil if he finds they are in the national interest. this bill would allow unlimited exports regardless of whether they are in the national security interest of the united states or not. i think that this is a slippery slope. commander kirk, the retired navy captain of the u.s.s. cole, testified before congress earlier this year and he said,
10:37 am
quote, the national security -- may i have 20 seconds? mr. pallone: additional 30 seconds. ms. eshoo: i thank the gentleman. the retired navy captain of the u.s.s. cole said the following, the national security implications of changing this existing policy, regulating the export of crude oil, are rife with unknown and probably unintended consequences that must be fully considered and addressed, unquote. i agree with the commander. this bill largely ignores those important national security concerns and it's why i urge my colleagues to oppose it. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: i want to recognize the gentleman from the energy capital of the world, houston texas, texas two, mr. poe of
10:38 am
texas, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, the administration has worked very hard to make sure the export ban on crude oil from iran is lifted. but the administration has threatened to veto this bill that would lift the crude oil sanction ban on american oil. that doesn't make any sense to me. help the iranians sell their excess crude oil abroad, but prevent america from selling our excess crude oil abroad. that's nutty. why does the president fiscal year the iranians over americans? doesn't make any sense. the president should at least give us the same deal that he gave the iranians. let them -- lift the sanctions on them, lift the sanctions on american oil. we have a surplus, we need to sell it. use all we can. sell the rest. that's the motto. that's just the way it is.
10:39 am
the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from texas roiches. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i believe we are lopsided on the time again. i would like to reserve. mr. barton: could we ask what the time differential is? the chair: the gentleman from texas has 20 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from new jersey as 14 minutes remaining. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: at this time i'm very honored to recognize the distinguished chairman of the energy and commerce committee, from the great state of michigan, my good friend, mr. upton, for two minutes. chairman upton for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. upton: thank you, mr. speaker. i really thank chairman emeritus barton for doing a really significant good job on getting this bill, bipartisan support, and working so hard over the last 18 months or so. both in the last congress and this congress, to get this bill ready for the floor today.
10:40 am
mr. speaker, much has changed since the ban on crude oil was put in place in 1975. and at time congress president ford were responding to the arab oil embargo crisis in an effort to protect this country from the unwanted impacts of the unstable global crude oil market. but we got good news today. imes have changed. one of the biggest threats to american energy boom today is not an international actor but rather our own ban on oil exports. lifting the crude oil export ban is a win for our economy. yes, it is. study after study has shown that lifting the ban would actually lower prices at the bump, create thousands of jobs, generate hundreds of millions of dollars in economic benefits and strengthen our geopolitical influence across the globe. it will actually also reduce the deficit by more than $1 billion with additional oil royalties. these are real benefits that will be felt not only in
10:41 am
southwest michigan, my district, but across the country. yet somehow this administration does not support this thoughtful solution. let's look at the benefits. according to the nonpartisan g.a.o., lifting the ban could 13 cents es by 1.5 to per gallon. real savings for every family's budget. some have suggested it could support the creation of an average of 394,000 jobs. additionally, the bill before us would boost royalty payments from federal oil and gas leases. collectively all of these gains provide the makings of a success story that would greatly benefit our economy at a time of great uncertainty. this administration often likes to say that they are for an all-of-the-above energypolicy. but the rhetoric falls well short of reality. it doesn't make much sense that the white house is gung ho to lift the export ban in iran, but when it comes to this country, the answer is no.
10:42 am
additional 30 seconds. mr. barton: happy to yield an additional 30 second. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. upton: this bipartisan bill would strengthen our hand in foreign diplomacy at a time when america has lost its standing on the global stage. by exporting our excess crude oil, we can help our allies seek a safe and secure supply of energy instead of being beholden to opec and russia for their energy needs, they can instead rely on their friends, the united states of america. creating jobs, keeping energy affordable, boosting energy production, improving our energy security, that's what this bill does. i would urge my colleagues to support the barton bill. in a vote later on this morning. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yield back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: i thank my
10:43 am
colleague for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 702. not only does this bill incentivize more oil development while ignoring its impacts on our climate, it also essentially guarantees billions more in profits for oil companies while doing virtually nothing to help consumers. there are many more important issues that we should be spending our time on to actually help american families. like raising the minimum wage. making college more affordable. instead we are passing a bill to help oil companies make more money. additionally, section 3 of the bill prohibits any federal official from taking any action that could potentially restrict the export of oil. this broad language could seriously undermine critical health and safety responsibilities of the federal government. for example, under current law the secretary of transportation has the authority to shut down a crude oil pipeline if it poses a threat to life, property, or the environment. but what if an oil pipeline
10:44 am
leading to an export terminal were in imminent danger of rupp turing? would the secretary still have the authority to shut down that line? or would that action be considered a restriction on exporting crude oil under this bill? these are not hypothetical questions. this authority was recently used in my district to shut down line 901 of the plains all american pipeline when it ruptured last may. since line 901 is the only way for the nearby offshore oil platforms to transports their oil to refineries, these platforms have had to shut down production entirely. nearly five months after the spill, line 901 remains shut down and there has been no indication it will be restarted in the near future. it's not hard to imagine a similar event happening again, and the secretary's authority to protect public health, property, and the environment during such an event must not be undermined. yet if this bill were law, the
10:45 am
secretary's authority could be preempted entirely by section 3 of this bill. in other words, the bill could create a scenario in which the perceived right of oil companies to export their oil supersedes our very real responsibility to protect public health and safety. the american people deserve better. this is a fatally flawed bill sets the wrong priorities. i urge its defight. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. . mr. barton: i yield two minutes to the distinguished republican whip, mr. scalise of district 1 and the great republican state of louisiana. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: i want to thank the chairman and my friend from texas for yielding and also his leadership for bringing this bill to the floor and building a strong bipartisan coalition to finally lift the ban on oil exports. mr. chairman, this is the relic of the 1970's that doesn't fit
10:46 am
with today's world economy but it also doesn't fit with a revolution that has happened in american energy because of american technology. we have an abundance of natural resources now and an abundance of oifment we literally could be the saudi arabia of -- oil. we literally could be the saudi arabia of energy and there is a an on the books that has a limitation on the ability to sell the natural resource. mr. chairman, at a time when the president is supporting this horrible deal with iran and allows iran to export their oil to the world markets the president at the same time is saying he opposes this bill that allows america to export its oil. and what's at stake, mr. chairman? what's at stake under this bill if this bill passes will create over 800,000 american jobs. good american jobs here at home.
10:47 am
if this bill passes, mr. chairman, we can actually create over $800 million to reduce the deficit. deficit reduction just by passing this bill. what's also at stake, mr. chairman, if we pass this bill, we can help our allies around the world. who don't want to have to get their oil from countries like russia where vladimir putin is using energy as a weapon against our friends, they can now get that energy from us, creating american jobs along the way. everything about this says yes. it's time to lift this relic of the 1970's. let's finally let american oil to be exported on the world markets when we have such an abundance and we have the ability to create hundreds of thousands of new american jobs along the way. i urge my colleagues to support the bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texasry serves -- texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from
10:48 am
florida, ms. castor. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. castor: i rise in opposition to h.r. 702. it's a giveaway to bill oil at the expense of -- big oil at the expense of american consumers and our long-standing policy of working towards energy independence. now, our current policy is not a ban. you can call it a ban but it's not a ban. it allows and promotes oil exports to strategically important allies, to places in the national interest. it is a smart policy, but now ig oil wants free rein to ship natural resources to countries not in our national interest. this bill would eviscerate our policy. and despite assertions that oil will go to europe and elsewhere, that is not supported by the facts. who is most likely to benefit?
10:49 am
experts say china. the energy information administration projects that china's oil consumption will double over the next two decades. now, china has been very aggressive all across the globe in exploiting and locking down natural resources. they've gone to africa. they've gone to south america. while we've been fighting battles in afghanistan, they've been locking down contracts for natural resources in afghanistan. and at the same time that merica is dealing with chinese cyberespionage and their geopolitical confrontations with our allies and the u.s., why would we help china gain a strategic foot hold on america's natural resources? i would think that america's national security interests would compel you to defeat this bill. you should also vote this bill down and side with american
10:50 am
consumers instead and american jobs. america is still heavily dependent on imports of crude oil. .e still import 25% today and he claims that sending american oil overseas would help consumers and america is entirely unsupported no many how many times they say it. instead, what the studies show is that exporting american oil would feed the uncertainty of oil markets and likely increase cost to american consumers. now, back home in tampa right now you can go to the gas station and fill up your tank at about $1.99 per gallon. so it defies logic to say that changing this policy that's working for america right now would really lower the price? i don't think so. and american jobs are also very likely to take a hit if this bill becomes law. why? because of the important jobs
10:51 am
in the refining industry, the shipping industry. those are american jobs. side with the american jobs. this bill is very poor public policy. exports would be determined only by big oil to serve the -- est of big oil the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. castor: could i have 10 more seconds? mr. pallone: 30 seconds. ms. castor: just to close, mr. speaker. the cost of energy independence, our national security interests compel a no vote on this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from cincinnati, ohio, the buckeye state, mr. steve chabot, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. chabot: thank you, mr. speaker. i have the honor of leading the house small business committee. a few months back we held a hearing on this very topic. we heard from small businesses
10:52 am
about how this ban is holding them back. that's the untold story of this. this ban is hurting small businesses all across this country. america's now the largest producer of oil and gas in the world. lifting this decades' old ban is an opportunity to jump-start the economy. it would help a million americans find work. it would increase the g.d.p. it would narrow the frayed deficit, atrack new capital to the u.s. and stabilize the global energy supply. if america is going to lead the world in the 21st century, let's not keep one hand tied behind our back. let's replace outdated energy policies with ones that are forward thinking, ones that will create new jobs in a new american century. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ohio yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute.
10:53 am
mr. scott: thank you very much, mr. speaker. ladies and gentlemen, this bill is about two things. it's about jobs and it's about national security. and it would give us an opportunity to get congress to join in with my good friend from north dakota, kevin crammer and brad ashford from nebraska because this is about jobs. nobody needs jobs more than african-americans, and the hardest hit on unemployment is african-american males. in allows us to be a part of being able to get language in that will help african-american males get the kind of apprenticeship training with the teamsters, with the afl-cio, with the operating engineers, all of those unions and contractors who are rebuilding this infrastructure for this. now on national security, make no mistake about it, ladies and gentlemen. what do you think russia is doing over in the middle east?
10:54 am
they want dominance over energy in the world, and he who controls the energy in the world controls the world. and that's why they want to prop up syria, because that is the sea port to get it out of the middle east. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scott: stand up for jobs for the american people and protect the world from russia. vote for to lift the ban. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: i want to say amen to what the gentleman said. how much time remains on each side the chair: the gentleman from texas has 15 minutes remaining. the gentleman from new jersey has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. barton: i want to yield one minute to the entire delegation from the great state of north dakota, mr. cramer, original co-sponsor of the bill, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from north dakota is recognized for one minute. mr. cramer: i thank the chairman and i thank you, mr. speaker.
10:55 am
i've often said i don't know why it takes 36 texans to do one person's job. mr. barton: i take my time back. mr. cramer: but i have to tell you, i was prepared to give a great speech and i listen to my friend from georgia and quite honestly i feel inadequate to the task because you stated it so eloquently and beautifully. i'm committed to what you talked about. so maybe what i'll try to do instead in my remaining seconds is remind us of the context that it was 72 years ago this week that the yom kippur war broke out that led to u.s. aid to israel which led to a 5% reduction of opec which led to the very issue that we're talking about today, that this historical context and a national security context is not irrelevant and that let's not, i would say, let history repeat itself but let's use the peaceful tools of energy development while creating jobs in america replace the weapons
10:56 am
of war in europe and in the middle east. let's use our influence for good by selling this american-made product that's produced by american workers and let's do it in a bipartisan fashion today. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i'd continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: i would -- i would yield on behalf of congressman uellar one minute to mr. ryan. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. ryan: i thank the gentleman. i'm normally on the opposite side of the gentleman on the congressional baseball team and normally with congressman doyle so i hope we can win this one against congressman mike doyle. so i thank the gentleman for the opportunity. two or three points i'd like to
10:57 am
make, mr. speaker. one, in ohio this ban means -- lifting this ban means 16,000 jobs in ohio. almost $3 billion in investment. our friends in the operating engineers and the laborers who will do that work are supportive of this bill. i know we have some issues with the refineries and i think we need to continue to work on that and see if we can fix that issue. we have a number of studies that say the savings to the american consumers will be anywhere from two cents a gallon all the way up to 12 cents a gallon. columbia university, brookings, aspen, resources for the future all are saying this is going to reduce the cost of gas, which is a direct benefit for our consumers and our constituents who need it as we see this huge economic squeeze for the middle class. lastly, i've been sitting on the defense appropriations committee now for a number of years, and this issue here can
10:58 am
directly benefit our ability to deal with what's happening in the middle east. can i get an additional 15 seconds? mr. barton: we yield the gentleman from ohio an additional 30 seconds on the understanding he will not play his best game against us next summer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. ryan: i yield back -- no. i'd also like to say sitting on the defense appropriations committee, we sit in these classified briefings, we see what's happening with russia, we see what putin's doing. we see what's happening in the middle east, the ukraine. we need to export this oil. we need to export our natural gas. we need to have a bigger footprint in the world so that we can make sure that our allies have access to consistent energy flows coming here from the united states and creating jobs here in the united states. michelle, a c.e.o. and founder of the center for new american security, former undersecretary of defense for policy under president obama, says by lifting the ban on u.s. exports
10:59 am
of crude oil, u.s. policymakers have an extraordinary opportunity to enhance not only our economic vitality but also our national security. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield one minute to the gentleman from minnesota. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the gentleman and, mr. chairman, i support removing restrictions on the export of crude oil from the united states and urge my olleagues to support h.r. 702. current export laws are outdated. since these laws were last visited nearly 40 years ago, u.s. oil production has increased significantly and the united states is now the largest producer of oil and gas. studies have shown that lifting the current ban on crude oil exports will create jobs, many in the rural areas, and we in our part of the world have seen the benefits domestic drilling can provide by looking at our neighboring state of north dakota. we need to do everything we can to support the use and production of domestic energy.
11:00 am
h.r. 702 is an important part of that, and following this bill's approval, i hope all members of congress will continue to support an all-of-the-above domestic energy production strategy by considering the national security and the economic development benefits of not just oil production but of production and related policies. mr. speaker, i strongly support h.r. 702 and yield back the balance of my time. . mr. barton: i'd like to recognize the gentleman from texas, member of the committee, sponsor of the bill, mr. pete olson. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. i thank my friend. this picture shows why we have to have -- end this ban on crude exports. ctober, 1973, opec cut us off.
11:01 am
we are getting 1.2 million barrels a day from opec. that dropped down to a scant 19,000. gas prices doubled. you could gas for your lawn mauer, you had to get in hine behind cars. because of american innovation, that world is gone. we are now awash in american crude oil. opec's days of dominance are over. but we can't deliver knockout blow until we end the ban on american crude exports which will do -- which we'll do in a few short minutes. when that happens, american families will have lower prices at the pump.
11:02 am
nations like venezuela, russia, iran whose influence -- mr. barton: an additional 15 seconds. mr. olson: mr. create thousands and thousands and -- will create thousands and thousands of good paying american jobs. ask my colleagues vote today to end the ban on crude oil exports. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: again, i would continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. gentleman from texas virginia tech. mr. barton: i want to recognize the gentleman from the great buckeye state of ohio, mr. stivers, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. stivers: i like to thank the gentleman from texas for yielding, for his extraordinary work on this bifment this bill is important for our national security. it's important for jobs. we need to end the oil export ban so we can export oil that's been generated as part of this
11:03 am
energy revolution in this country that's going to be great for jobs and help our national security partners around the world. let's make the world safer. let's give america more jobs. let's end the oil export ban. please support this bill today. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, this is ill-advised legislation. my friends on the other side of the aisle claim 800,000 jobs, a million jobs. they don't have any real defined ability to provide such an estimate. it's a number that's made up because there will be offsetting, as some of the
11:04 am
speakers have acknowledged, there will be offset -- offsetting job losses as a result of what's going to happen in the refining industry or what's going to happen in terms of some of the transport. that's beside the point. we actually have a policy that is working. there will come a time, perhaps, when it makes sense in a strategic matter to make an adjustment. right now the president has the latitude to be able to help some of our strategic partners. he has that flexibility. we are awash of oil in this country, and to expect that somehow exporting more of it is going to make a dramatic impact at the pump here is a pipe dream. it won't. it might make a modest impact. but what we could do is provide a benefit to the large oil companies as part of a larger package that would help everybody. we have expiring tax provisions, for instance.
11:05 am
dealing with the production tax shed, dealing with wind and solar that actually create far more jobs than will be found in the refining and oil production . these are good family-wage jobs all across the country. let's put together a package that speaks to alternative energy, continuity. that speaks to conservation. that speaks to a long-term strategy that is a win-win. i'm absolutely confident that my friend, mr. pallone, mr. barton could sit down and deal with a package that would have far more benefit for america if you're going to hand out another goody to the oil companies. leapt's have a more omprehensive approach that meets our comprehensive energy needs. this bill doesn't do t the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. gentleman from texas virginia tech. mr. barton: may i ask the time, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from texas has 10 1/2 minutes
11:06 am
remaining. the gentleman from new jersey has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. barton: we would like on behalf of mr. cuellar to yield one minute to either mr. ashford or mr. costa. i see mr. costa on the floor. mr. costa of california one minute on behalf of mr. guy yar -- cuellar. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. costa: i'd like to thank the gentleman from texas for yielding. as some my colleagues have mentioned, the ban on crude oil exports is an outdatedpolicy. it was a 1975 that it was enacted. a lot has changed since 1975. i believe in this bipartisan commonsense solution is needed to develop a comprehensive effort to deal with our energy policy in america that deals with both our short-term and long-term needs. i think we have to use all the tools in our energy toolbox and i think this is part of that effort. new technologies have provided the united states with an abundance of crude oil that's only continuing in nature,
11:07 am
combined with our renewables and other energy sources. we need to understand that this is about stimulating our economy. and creating jobs. it also has a very important geopolitical influence on bad actors like russia and iran who use energy as a political weapon. i understand there are concerns about my colleagues on eliminating this ban and the negative impacts it will have. especially i have some concerns with small and midsized domestic refineries which i represented. will the gentleman yield another 30 seconds. mr. barton: i can give you 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. costa: this is a work in progress. we obviously need to address a number of other issues with the senate, but i remind my colleagues this is important. it's about jobs, the economy, and providing alternatives of energy to russia and iran and that's why i support this legislation as we continue to work together in a bipartisan fashion. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized.
11:08 am
mr. pallone: because of the time i would reserve again. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: i want to yield a minute and a half to the distinguished subcommittee chairman of the armed services committee, mr. duncan hunter of the golden state state of california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. hunter: i thank the gentleman from texas. i'm voting for this bill overall. and in california we don't drill anymore. we are cutting down on our refineries even. but this is important for the nation. one big part of this bill is the maritime security program. if you don't know it, over 90% of all the stuff that we transfer to iraq, afghanistan, anywelfare reform there is erican troops, -- anywhere where there is american troops, everything for the most part is shipped on american flag commercial vessels. of the 50,000 ships, cargo ships that travel the ocean, every day, 79 of those are american flags. that's it. 79 out of 50,000.
11:09 am
60 of those are on call when america needs them to transfer our gear to our troops overseas. when i was a lieutenant in the marine corps, my second tour in 2004, i drove down to the san diego port with my marine battery and we loaded up all the equipment that we would then fall in on in iraq two months later. without the maritime security program plus up that is in this bill, we would not be able to go fight wars. we would not be able to move our equipment. we would not be able to support our troops. this is a national security bill. it's not only national security because it's energy security, but it's national security because that's how we support our troops overseas is with the maritime security program which this bill pluses up. i just want to say thank you to the chairman and everybody who supports this. i urge my colleagues to not just support energy security, but support national security. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. gentleman from new jersey is recognized.
11:10 am
mr. pallone: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from texas, miss johnson. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. thank you very much, mr. speaker. i had planned to support this bill. as a matter of fact as a co-sponsor. but since i have been unable to remove myself from the co-sponsorship, i wish to speak on the record regarding my opposition to this particular bill. while i believe that congress should consider the potential for all energy sources to meet our nation's current and future needs, i believe that this legislation lacks the proper safeguards and oversight for such a major change in our nation's energy policy. the bill does not appropriately consider the implications of our national security, economy, consumers, and especially the
11:11 am
environment. exporting crude oil does not increase demand for oil or diminutively decrease the number of u.s. jobs in the energy sector. on the contrary, many u.s. jobs that are down stream in the domestic refining process may be threatened. in addition, exporting oil to foreign countries for refining purposes would likely increase overall co-2 emissions. mr. chairman i will -- mr. pallone: i yield another 30 seconds. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. the bottom line is that we must consider many factors related to our energy portfolio before we lift any current restrictions. and i ask unanimous consent to put my entire statement in the record. thank you. the chair: that will be covered by general leave. the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: on behalf of mr. cuellar, i wish to yield two minutes to the gentleman from
11:12 am
the peach state of georgia, mr. bishop. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i come to the floor today to express my support of h.r. 702, much needed legislation which would lift the arbitrary ban on the export of one of our country's most abundant natural resources, crude oil. the current ban on exports is a relic of a different time before we, as a nation, knew just how much crude oil we have stored in the earth across this contry. we are entirely too dependent on foreign oil sources, particularly from countries who have no regard for the american economy. today is different. in fact, from the period between 2000 and 2013, u.s. production of crude oil increased by nearly 14 fold from 250,000 barrels per day to 3.5 million. with this large amount of excess capacity, we can sell our oil to the global market
11:13 am
which will bring u.s. crude prices in line with global prices and global prices with go down because of the increased supply. no less than 68% of consumers of cost of gasoline and 57% for diesel fuel come from the price of the source, crude oil. numerous studies have shown that the increased global supply will lead to lower prices at the pump. not only will consumers have more money to spend on school ply splie, food, clothing, and other household tapesles, but the prices thieves goods will go down because the cost to transport them from manufacturer to store will decrease. and possibly more importantly we have to consider the security implications of allowing the export of crude. we are in the position of showing the world that we can provide a stable source of energy to friendly countries around the globe. our supplies will dilute the market share of unfriendly countries and weaken their grip on our democratic ally nations
11:14 am
who have to depend on some of our unfriendly countries for their oil supplies. we can provide an alternative source to those who don't want to support our adversaries and their adversaries. i thank my colleagues, mr. cuellar, mr. barton for bringing forth this critically important legislation. i urge my colleagues in the house to vote yes on h.r. 702. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i would reserve because of the time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: mr. speaker, we only have two speakers, myself and mr. cuellar. i believe i have the right to close. i'd ask my friend from new jersey how many speakers he still has. mr. pallone: just myself and mr. garamendi. mr. barton: i would at this time reserve and ask -- the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. mr. barton: we are ready to close. mr. pallone: can i ask how much
11:15 am
time remains on our side? the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has 3 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. pallone: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: mr. chairman, we have before us a very, very important issue. it is a national security issue. my good friend from san diego spoke to one part of our nation's security, that's the ability of our nation to move its interest around the world. not just with airplanes but with ships. . unfortunately this is a narrowly constructed piece of legislation that speaks to the interest of the petroleum industry and the many of thousands people that work there. we concede. that this could also be a boone to another part of our nation's security and that's our maritime industry. unfortunately the bill does not do that. while it does deal with the maritime security program, and that's good, it does not deal in full potential with what we can do, and that is to require
11:16 am
that this strategic asset, oil, be shipped on american-built ships with american mariners. that's not in the bill. it should be. it could be. and if it were our shipyards and our mariners all around this nation would have tens of thousands of jobs. and we would secure yet, not only the interest of our petroleum industry, but also the interest of our maritime industry as well as the shipyards upon which this nation's national had defense depends. put it in the bill and then let's see how many votes you can get. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back his time. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: mr. speaker, i want yield two minutes to my chief sponsor, the gentleman that represents south texas, the eagle frled shale, the honorable and great henry cuellar. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. cuellar: thank you very much, mr. barton, for yielding. and thank you for the
11:17 am
leadership that you have provided in this bill. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 702, that repeals the banon crude oil. you know, this ban reflects an america of yesterday. it's our job as members of congress that our laws reflect the america of tomorrow. and if you look at why this is important, this ban hurts the economy and prevents the creation of jobs. this ban imposes an estimated $200 billion to $300 billion cost to the economy. and discourages domestic made in america crude oil production. by lifting the ban now, we will create 359,000 new jobs. how do i know? because i represent the eagleford, and i've seen small business people, men and women that work very hard every single day to have this type of job, and i think we owe it to them and across the nation. this ban also reduces the federal direct spending by $1.4 billion, so it -- according to
11:18 am
the c.b.o. so it also helps our deficit. this ban is something that we need to change and we need to make sure that we lift this ban. what about gasoline prices? you heard mr. ryan. you heard other folks. according to the general accounting office, this will bring prices down from 1.5 cents to 13 cents. c.b.o., same thing. five cents to 10 cents. the administration's own agency, the energy information administration, says it would bring down one penny or remain. doesn't go up, it goes down. this ban also doesn't allow us to use our powers in the foreign policy. why are we allowing russia or iran to dictate what happens in this world? and this is why we need to make sure that we support the repealing of this ban. now, who supports this? mr. barton, you know it's a bipartisan bill. democrats and republicans support this bill.
11:19 am
but it's also supported by business, small business owners, and by some of the labor organizations. we've talked to those labor organizations. mr. speaker, support h.r. 702, a bipartisan bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i yield myself the remaining time. the chair: two minutes are remaining. the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, let me point out that the administration, the president has issued a sap saying he would veto this bill. this bill is going nowhere because of that veto and the potential for a veto. all this legislation does is give a windfall of $30 billion in profits to the oil industry. no strings attached. no sacrifices required. the legislation is opposed by over 40 environmental groups. the united steel workers, the ibew, the blue-green alliance, the industrial energy consumers of america, and most importantly, mr. chairman, the american public who, regardless of party, support investing in refineries at home rather than
11:20 am
lifting crude export restrictions. in fact, around 70% of voters oppose allowing oil companies to export more u.s. oil. the republican majority has penalty is the whole week doing little more than attacking women's health and assisting big oil for their big profits. it's time to come together in the name of energy and national security, in the name of commonsense and economic good sense. i urge a no vote on this bill and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: can i inquire how much time i have? the chair: the gentleman from texas has 3 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. barton: mr. speaker, i yield myself the bam of the time. the chair: the gentleman from texas -- balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that i revise and extend. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. barton: mr. speaker, we've had a very enlightening debate for the last hour. i'd say 30 members of congress have stood up and spoken eth
11:21 am
eelt -- either in favor or opposition to the bill. i want it to be noted that we've had a large number of my friends on the democratic side have rissen in support of the bill. -- risen in support of the bill. i want to compliment mr. cuellar for his strong leadership in that area. this is a bipartisan bill. when we do our town hall meetings, mr. speaker, person after person stands up and says, why can't you folks in congress get along? why don't you try to be positive? why don't you try to do what's right for america? why don't you work together in a bipartisan basis? mr. speaker, that's what this bill does. this is a bipartisan bill. we have a large number of democratic co-sponsors and a large number of republicans. this bill will help all 50 states and has, as mr. bishop has stated and mr. scott has stated on the democratic side, it helps low income, it helps minority, it helps women, it
11:22 am
helps every sector of the economy. not just the oil industry, not just the rough necks, not just the drillers. it helps truck drivers, it helps steel workers, it even helps refinery workers, it helps computer programmers, you name it, it helps it. some estimates are this bill if enacted would create as many as a million jobs. we know for a fact that the collapse in oil prices in the last year and a half has cost the u.s. economy over $500 -- 500,000 jobs. 750,000 jobs. those are real people. that's not big oil, mr. speaker. that's people that get up every morning, kiss their wives, hop in their car, go to work, work hard, eight, 10, 12 hours a day, get the bills at the end of the month and hope, do they have enough money to pay the bills? it's blue collar america. it's not big oil.
11:23 am
it's everybody in this country, mr. speaker. this bill is a market-based bill. willing buyer, willing seller. the u.s. has the largest oil reserves in the world. we have the capability to be number one in the world. why on god's green earth don't we use it? why are we the only nation in the world that is restricted in one of the blessings that god has endowed our great nation with? we could produce, if we wanted to, up to 20 million barrels a day. we're producing right now nine million barrels a day. u.s. oil can go anywhere in the world if we allow it to. that is an economic asset, it is a military strategic asset. all we have to do is repeal an archaic law that was passed in 1975, when we couldn't export a barrel of oil if we wanted to. we were importing 2/3 of our
11:24 am
oil. so, we have a bipartisan bill that helps everybody in america , that is in the economic interest of america, that is in the environmental interest of america, that is in the military strategic interest of america. mr. speaker, let's work together, let's send this bill to the senate with a strong bipartisan support -- with strong bipartisan support. god bless america, god bless this great country. pass h.r. 702 with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the rule of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce, printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print
11:25 am
114-29, that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of house report 114-290. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it's now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-290. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. amash: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 114-290. offered by mr. amash of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 466, the gentleman from michigan and a member opposed each will control five
11:26 am
minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. amash: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment removes a new section in the bill, added by the committee on rules, that increases funding for the maritime security program by $500 million. my amendment does not eliminate the program, it simply keeps it at its current authorization level. just last week the house passed the conference report for the national defense authorization act. this defense policy bill, negotiated at length between house and senate conferees, increases the annual subsidy for maritime security program participants from $3.1 million per vessel to $3.5 million per vessel. a 12.9% increase. the provision added quietly by the rules committee sir come eventualities regular order and increases funding even more. as amended h.r. 702 boosts per vessel payments to $5 million per year. increasing the subsidy by a whopping 42%. the proper place for a
11:27 am
discussion on funding for the maritime security program is in a defense bill like the ndaa. not as part of a bill that lifts a ban on crude oil exports. this spending increase is all the more reckless given the more than our $18 trillion national debt. according to the congressional budget office, lifting the export ban will increase receipts from federal oil and gas leases by $1.4 billion over the next 10 years. we should use those receipts to reduce the deficit. mr. chairman, there are had two ways we should amend bills. the first way is to go through the normal committee process by introducing amendments during a markup. members have the opportunity to debate and vote on amendments in the committee of jurisdiction. we should respect the work committees do by not altering the bills they report before we even consider the legislation on the house floor. the second way is to offer an amendment when the bill comes up for debate on the house floor. this gives all representatives the opportunity to participate
11:28 am
in the debate and represent their constituents by voting on the measure. unfortunately the rules committee changed this bill behind closed doors late last week. the maritime security program is a defense-related program that has nothing to do with oil exports or energy production. this provision has no place in h.r. 702, and its 11th hour edition by the rules committee is the latest example of our broken legislative process. mr. chairman, we must protect this institution and the legislative process. adding an unrelated provision to this bill behind closed doors is no way to legislate. i urge all members to vote yes on my amendment, to remove this unrelated $500 million spending increase, so we can consider h.r. 702 as reported by the energy and commerce committee. thank you, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves.
11:29 am
mr. pallone: i'd like to seek the five minutes in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. pallone: at that i would like to yield one minute and 15 seconds to mr. forbes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and 15 seconds. mr. forbes: thank you. mr. chairman, i rise today to support h.r. 702, but more importantly, to oppose this amendment. first of all, we tell the gentleman, this amendment was considered and this provision was considered in the ndaa and we did mark it up. the second thing is, this is vital to the national security of this country, to maintain the private sector sea lift capacity. our top military commanders have called m.s.p. a vital element of our military strategic sea lift and global response capability and it's worth noting that 90% of all u.s. military cargo moved from iraq and afghanistan has been by american flag to american
11:30 am
crude commercial vessels enrolled in m.s.p. program. if we were to adopt this amendment, it would basically cost us $13 billion to recreate this. the u.s. transportation command has estimated it would cost some $52 billion. in other words, mr. chairman, it would take us between 42 years and 168 years to recoup our cost. let's defeat this amendment and protect the maritime security program. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from michigan. . >> this amendment is about process. i recognize the concerns of my colleague. this should be canled in the ndaa or defense bill. mr. i amash: i urge all members to support my amendment eliminating this increase in spending and reject the rule's committee's 11th hour revision that has nothing to do with crude oil exports. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield a minute and a half to the democratic
11:31 am
whip, mr. hoyer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. hoyer: i join my friend, mr. forbes, in opposition to this amendment, mr. speaker. this amendment would harm america's national security. under the program that it seeks to eliminate, the pentagon reserves capacity and roughly 60 u.s. flag commercial ships to ensure the supply and transport of american troops. it is a program that supports our private sector as well, requiring the defense department to contract private commercial ships rather than building their own. o there is not redundency. it is a program that enhances america's national security by ensuring that our military can depend on u.s. flagged and crude vessels instead of foreign ones. it's a program that supports important domestic maritime jobs. in my view, we ought to reject this amendment.
11:32 am
this legislation is legislation that is obviously controversial. i hope this amendment is not controversial and receives overwhelming bipartisan opposition. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. the gentleman from michigan has yielded back. the gentleman from new jersey controls the time. mr. pallone: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the amendment. i represent the port of houston and maritime transportation is vital to our success. last year the united states $2.4 trillion and exported 1.6 trillion in goods. much of that comes on foreign built ships under foreign flag and without u.s. citizens onboard. our maritime industries has been a bedrock of our economy since our founding. more cargo moves through our waterways than any other mode of transportation.
11:33 am
we need to protect our domestic aritime industry that includes men and women that work on these ships. i have worked with the maritime unions, sea fairers, and marine engineers since my first days in congress and i want to thank my colleagues for supporting our u.s. flag maritime unions. i oppose this amendment because i support any effort to keep these folks working. i'd like to take a minute and acknowledge a recent incident in the atlantic ocean. the disappearance of the cargo ship resulted in loss of life and i want to extend my prayers and our prayers to the families. working on these ships is tough and can be hazardous as we learned last week. it's my hope that we can defeat this amendment and ensure our economic viability and national security for putting our crews on u.s. flags on more ships. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i'd like to yield the balance of our time to mr. hunter. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for the balance of the time. mr. hunter: thank you, mr.
11:34 am
speaker. to the gentleman from michigan's point, this is the process. i chair the maritime coast guard subcommittee and transportation. i'm also the vice chairman of the sea power subcommittee in the armed services committee. mr. forbes is the chairman of the subcommittee that handles this stuff. this went through the process. this is the process. this is how it is supposed to work. there are only, i'll say again, 79 u.s. flag commercial vessels on the ocean today. 79 out of about 50,000. 60 of those are used in times of war. it would cost us billions of dollars to create a fleet that sits there mothballing until we go to war and then we get to use it. this is how the system works. this is the process. and this is how we keep national security strong. republicans and democrats realize this is the process. it's the right way to do it. and it shores up the maritime security program for a decade.
11:35 am
that's 10 years we don't have to worry about this. and it's paid for. the gentleman from michigan would have a point if this were not paid for. it is totally paid for. this is the right vehicle for it. i would urge my colleagues to support to vote against the gentleman's amendment and support maritime security and national security. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. amash: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 114-290. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek
11:36 am
recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report number 114-290, offered by mr. delaney of maryland. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 466, the gentleman from maryland, mr. delaney, and a member posed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. delaney: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, recent data suggests that climate change is accelerating and as a result the destabilizing effect it has on our environment is worsening. and to my mind this is a clear threat to american prosperity and global stability. mr. chairman, consider the fact that the governor of the bank of england recently in a speech said that he is very concerned unless we respond to climate change that there will be a dramatic reduction in value of carbon assets which will cause a financial crisis. as a country with the largest
11:37 am
financial markets in the world, we should be concerned about that. mr. chairman, consider the fact that citigroup recently put out a research report that said unless we deal with climate change the effect on global g.d.p. will be $44 trillion to the negative by 2050. that's twice the size of the u.s. economy. mr. speaker, consider -- mr. chairman, consider the fact that the u.n. has estimated that unless we deal with climate change, 150 million people will be forced to be relocated by 2050. 20 million alone in bangladesh. put that in the context of the fact that in syria we are seeing the effects of seven million people being forced to be relocated. again, mr. chairman, this is a clear threat to american prosperity. the bad news is that our environment is worse. the good news is the technology is better for dealing with this problem. consider the fact that as we have doubled the install base of solar energy in this country, we have reduced the
11:38 am
cost of energy by 23%. it's happened over the last several cycles of doubling solar and people expect it to continue. this is occurring because of good old-fashioned american innovation. and while i believe there should be policy prescriptions from the government that effectively cost and price carbon, at a minimum, mr. chairman, we should agree that by investing in clean energy technology we will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we will lower energy costs for the american public, and we will increase national security. and that is what the amendment that i have here today is designed to do. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. barton: i rise in opposition to the amendment but only in order to control some time. the chair: without objection. the gentleman virginia tech. mr. barton: mr. speaker, chairman upton and i are prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment.
11:39 am
we do have some republican speakers who would like to speak in favor of it. at this time i would yield a minute and a half to mr. curbelo from the commonwealth of puerto rico. state of florida. soarry. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. curbelo: close enough. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. curbelo: mr. chairman, i thank the gentleman for yielding. first, mr. chairman, let me offer my support for the underlying bill h.r. 702. over the august district work period i had the opportunity to visit an oil rig in the gulf of mexico and see firsthand the safety regulations and enhancement that has been put in place by the industry in recent years. two of the primary topics of discussion during our visit were safety and the environment. now, i was glad to learn the industry has put a lot of contingencies in place to make sure we can continue drilling for oil in a manner that is safe and responsible. i have joined my colleagues,
11:40 am
mr. delaney and mr. gibson, in offering this simple amendment that would recognize our country as making progress and becoming more energy efficient. and that's bert for the economy and the environment. it is also very important to note the other forms of energy that are benefiting our country's economy and its national security. wind, solar, natural gas, and nuclear energy are all contributing greatly to our energy independence. and this amendment before us today acknowledges that we should continue to promote an all of the above energy strategy for this 21st century. with that, mr. chairman, i urge the adoption of this amendment and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yield ack. the gentleman from maryland. mr. delaney: i reserve the balance of my time the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, 19, from the great city of tender hook, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from
11:41 am
new york is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. gibson: i thank the chairman for yielding and for his leadership. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this amendment. i'm honored to be working with my colleagues, john delaney, carlso curbelo to offer this important bipartisan amendment. this amendment adds another tragedy mention to this bill. pport for -- nor strategic dimension for this bill. it's important we support research and development for clean energy technologies. in new york we are doing a loft this work supporting important programs like the sun shop program with the goal of driving down the total cost of photo volume tailics to nine cents per kilowatt hour which would allow it to compete with any other source, transforming the way we produce, convey, and consume energy. with improved technologies, we will also see more proliferation of wind power, hydroelectric power, and biomass energy complementing
11:42 am
all other traditional energy sources, including crude oil. adding up to a stronger america. mr. speaker, this is a country that can do hard things. we have proven that time and again. with the proper focus an investment, we will dominate the clean energy world market and when we do we will drive down energy cost, we will grow our economy, strengthen our national security, and conserve our environment. i urge support of this amendment. let's take a robust and holistic approach to energy independence. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. delaney: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleague and friend from texas for accepting this amendment. i want to thank my colleague from new york and my colleague from florida for their support of their amendment and insight into this issue. and again i urge all my colleagues to support the amendment. it's very simple. it simply says that investing in basic research, investing in american innovation will, in fact, reduce greenhouse gas
11:43 am
emissions which it's been groven to dofment will lower energy costs, which has been proven to do. and will increase national security in this great country. again i want to thank my colleagues for their support and i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: we accept the amendment. we ask for a voice vote and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. t the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in art b of house report 114-290. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. huffman: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the designated the amendment. cloim amendment number 3 shall, printed in house report number
11:44 am
114-290, offered by mr. huffman of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 466, the gentleman from california, mr. huffman, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to offer my amendment to h.r. 702. this is the only amendment that the majority would allow in order to help us understand the impacts of lifting the crude oil export ban on greenhouse gas emissions. before the rules committee, ranking member pallone and i offered two other amendments that would have more proactively studied the increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by this bill. instead, the majority only allowed this amendment which requires that the department of energy do a report on the increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the lifting of the crude oil export ban but still allows the ban to be lifted. this is what the legislative process has come to, unfortunately, in this chamber.
11:45 am
instead of analyzing full impacts before voting, the majority has adopted a pollute first, ask questions later approach. repeal the restrictions on fossil fuel extraction and production and then we'll figure out the environmental impact later. lifting this 40-year-old ban on exports could increase oil production by as much as 500,000 barrels a dafmente that's a significant increase. the risks expanding production into sensitive areas off our coasts, public lands, and according to the center for america progress, this production would result in an additional 515 million metric tovens carbon pollution eachor. that's the equivalent of an additional 108 million passenger cars on the road. . or 135 coal-fired power plants put online. that's what this bill could do. and that's why over 40 environmental groups are opposing it. now, my republican colleagues might dispute this study.
11:46 am
it's the center for american progress. so when we hear studies from any group that's not funded by the fossil fuel industry, we typically hear them accused of being biased left-leaning sources. and certainly they're welcome to make that argument. but doesn't that support the need for an established nonpartisan source of assessments? on the impacts to our environmental for bills that this congress considers? that's why today, mr. speaker, i am also introducing the carbon pollution transparency act of 2015. this is a bill that would require the c.b.o. to estimate and report on the projected carbon footprint of each bill congress considers. hat way we know before we vote how a bill would impact our climate and our environment. members of congress already rely on the fiscal impact estimates produced by the nonpartisan c.b.o. to help us make good decisions, make up our minds. but we need to also take into account the environmental consequences of our votes.
11:47 am
the american public has the right to know whether their representatives in washington are voting to help harm the environment, to worsen climate change, or whatever the impact may be. and that's why my bill ensures that we have a fair judge, the c.b.o., for each bill that we consider on its environmental impact. but today we at least have an opportunity to require such a study as part of h.r. 702. it's not enough. but it is a step forward to fully understand the impacts of lifting the crude oil export ban and potentially the harm that would result to our environment. so i urge a yes vote on my amendment and a no vote on the underlying legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. barton: i rise in mild opposition and i may change my mind depending on what the gentleman says. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. barton: i won't make a -- i want to make a deal with you. we want to be open and transparent.
11:48 am
we're the open, transparent ongress. we'll accept your amendment if you voice vote it and at least consider voting for the bill. but if you're going to roll call vote it and vote against the bill, then i'll oppose it and we'll defeat you on the roll kl call vote -- on the roll call vote. i'm going to make you a deal. you can say -- i'm not saying you have to vote for the bill. i'm just saying i want to you think nice thoughts about the bill and consider voting for the bill and then we will accept it on a voice vote. but we don't want any roll call votes. the chair: the gentleman from texas should be advised to direct his remarks to the chair. mr. barton: i hope you were listening, mr. speaker. so i'm going to yield to my friend from california, if i have time to yield, to see what his thoughts are. mr. huffman: clue the chair, i would say to -- through the chair, i would say to my friend, i appreciate the offer but i don't think there could be anything more transparent thag than going on record and voting -- transparent than
11:49 am
going on record and voting on these. mr. barton: so you're going to ask for the roll call vote? mr. huffman: yes. mr. barton: i oppose the gentleman's amendment and ask every member to vote against he amendment -- amendment. if i still control the time, mr. speaker. the chair: you do. mr. barton: we're not violently opposed to this. it's a study. i'm confident that this bill will on a net basis reduce greenhouse gases. because the oil that would most probably be exported is produced under the strictest environmental regulations in the world. it also happens to be the easiest oil to refine because it's light, sweet, which means it doesn't have a high sulfur content. and when you run it through the cracking process, because it's lighter, it tends to separate into the various refined products more easily. so the gentleman's amendment is benign in nature in the sense that if we were to conduct the study, i think the results from the study would be positive. but since this is a get-away
11:50 am
day and everyone has planes to catch -- i'd be happy to yield. mr. huffman: thank you. to my esteemed colleague and coach of the baseball team, in the spirit of thinking good thoughts, if you will think good thoughts about considering the impacts to our environment and our climate, i will accept offer to voice vote this amendment and maybe all of this great, good thought stuff will get us home faster. mr. barton: reclaiming my time. i commend the gentleman for his thoughtful understanding, and with that we accept the gentleman's amendment and ask everybody to vote for it on a voice vote. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.
11:51 am
it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 114-290. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? mrs. lawrence: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. h.r. 702. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 114-290 offered by mrs. lawrence of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 466, the gentlewoman from michigan and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from michigan. mrs. lawrence: mr. chairman, i rise today to offer an amendment that would direct the department of commerce, in all theation -- in consultation with the department of energy and other departments as needed, to conduct a study. this study would measure the impact of exporting millions of barrels of domestically produced crude oil on americans and our economy. let's be clear. lifting the crude oil export
11:52 am
ban benefits very few. let's also be clear about who does not benefit american consumers and the american economy. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will make the case for lifting the ban on crude oil exports. they will cite reports by the u.s. department of energy, the congressional budget office, the government accountability office and various other organizations who support their claims. some of the benefits they will lift include claims of an increase in crude oil production, additional investment in crude oil production, and an increase in employment along the energy supply chain. but there's a problem with the u.s. crude oil is already at peak production. according to a report by the
11:53 am
e.i.a., production reached 9.7 million barrels one day in april of 2015, the highest level since 1971. and 2015 -- in 2015 production is expected to average 9.2 million barrels a day. we still import seven million barrels of oil a day. let's find way to keep domestically produced crude oil within our borders, which benefits our consumers and the economy in the u.s. for example, the domestic gas prices are at record levels due to the surplus of crude oil. according to the u.s. federal highway administration, americans drove nearly two trillion miles during the first seven months of 2015. contributing to the high gas consumption and setting a
11:54 am
record level. lifting the ban now on u.s. crude oil benefits would undoubtedly raise prices. for consumers, these increases will result in higher gas prices at the pump and higher heating costs for families in the winter. as all of you know, the manufacturing industry is the backbone of michigan's economy. while the u.s. manufacturing industry has struggled in the past, it has been one of the bright spots in our economy since the recession. and remains a vital part of america's economy, as well as our nation's economy. since 2010 over 700,000 manufacturing jobs that were lost in the recession has been recovered. one major reason for this resurgence of the manufacturing sector is low energy prices. up to 1/3 of all energy used in the united states goes into the manufacturing sector.
11:55 am
rushing to lift the ban on crude oil now would only hurt the manufacturing industry and dent its growth. let us find a way to keep domestically produced crude oil within our own boundaries and allow consumers and the economy lower the benefits of energy prices. let us put together comprehensive study of the impact of lifting the u.s. crude oil export ban on the consumers and our economy first, before we rush to export millions of barrels of domestically produced crude oil . for the benefit of all americans, for the benefit of our economy, i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. barton: again, mr. speaker, i rise in mild opposition, but i could become a supporter of the bill -- of the amendment, under certain conditions. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. barton: mr. speaker, if the gentlelady from michigan is willing to accept the same deal
11:56 am
that the gentleman from california just accepted, we'll accept the amendment and we'll vote for it on a voice vote and move on down the road to catch my plane at 1:40 from reagan national airport. does the gentlelady agree to voice vote it? mrs. lawrence: to the chair, considering all this happening here -- all that's happening here, i really need good thoughts and i want to be part of the process of expanding good thoughts in congress. so i will accept. mr. barton: with that, mr. speaker, we rise in enthusiastic support of the gentlelady's amendment and ask that it be voted for on a voice vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider
11:57 am
amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 114-290. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 114-290 offered by mr. messer of iiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 466, the gentleman from indiana and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana. mr. messer: thank you, mr. chair. i want to thank my colleague and the gentleman from texas, mr. barton, for his leadership on this important bill. and i'm hoping today to join the voice vote kumbaya if possible. h.r. 702 is a commonsense legislation that appeals the outdated ban on crude oil exports. this ban was originally implemented when america was going through an energy crisis. i was very young then, but certainly remember the gas lines in the early 1970's.
11:58 am
the truth is, things are different today. america is one of the largest oil exporters thanks to a boom in production all across our country. gas prices are at historic lows and refineries are near capacity. yet our laws do not reflect this new reality. producers are still held captive to the domestic marketplace, it's long past time to mod irnse. this bill will pave the way for a new age of energy innovation in america. it will support and create thousands of u.s. jobs, good paying jobs, and encourage the investment of millions of dollars into our economy. america now has opportunities that would have seemed unimaginable even a generation ago, potentially even a few years ago. we could now become a net exporter of energy. think about that.
11:59 am
and when we do, it will jump-start our economy, create thousands of good paying jobs and improve our national security and economic security as well. now, mr. chair, i'm offering a bipartisan -- an amendment today that clarifies language in the bill to avoid creating any unintended consequences regarding terrorist enemies of our country. i want to thank my colleague from california, mr. lowenthal, for co-sponsoring this amendment and chairman royce for working with us in crafting the amendment as well. why we should all want to see crude oil exports expanded, we do not want this bill to inadvertently help our enemies. my amendment very simply clarifies the bill's language to allow the administration to retain its ability to prohibit the export of crude oil to state sponsors of terrorism. i believe this amendment is consistent with the underlying goals of the bill. i encourage my colleagues to support its adoption and with
12:00 pm
that, mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time -- yeah. i yield. mr. barton: just before you reserve. chairman upton and i strongly support your amendment. commend you for offering it. we think it amendments -- we think it adds to the bill. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i rise in mild opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pallone: thank you. support the amendment but you should vote no on final passage of h.r. 702. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana. mr. messer: i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the
12:01 pm
amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. pallone: i'd ask for a roll call. the chair: without objection, the amendment is agreed to. mr. pallone: i'd ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. pallone: yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings -- e amendment offered by proceedings will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 114-290. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. messer: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 114-290 offered by mr. messer of indiana. the chair: the gentleman from indiana, mr. messer, and a person opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana.
12:02 pm
mr. messer: thank you, mr. chair. again, i want to thank mr. barton for his leadership on this important bill and reiterate my support for h.r. 702. this is commonsense legislation that repeals the outdated ban on crude oil exports. the u.s. is producing more oil today than ever before. and we could literally become a net exporter of energy, something that would have been unimaginable a generation ago and would have incredible results for our economy. the fact that we are the only advanced nation that prohibits the export of domestically roduced oil holds us back. we should not empower our enemies unintentional lie through this legislation, and this includes the islamic -- unintentionally through the legislation, and this includes the islamic republic of iran. obviously iran has oil and has no need to import it from the
12:03 pm
united states, but my amendment goes beyond just crude oil. it ensures iran will not inadvertently have access to other petroleum-based products produced in the u.s. refined petroleum and petro chemical products are use -- petrochemical products are used to manufacture thousands of goods that we use every day. things like plastics, asphalt, paints and cell phones are manufactured in this way. it was only a few weeks ago in this very chamber that we discussed the dangers of the joint comprehensive plan of action, also known as the iran nuclear deal. despite being able to enrich uranium in the nuclear facilities, iran will relieve sanctions relief to the tune of $150 billion. it's $150 billion pumped into a $400 billion a year national economy. $150 billion that will no doubt be used by iran to bank roll terrorist organizations, further destabilize the middle east and continue their work to wipe israel off the map. things should not be made
12:04 pm
easier for them. the intent of the underlying bill is not to support iran, it's to open up the u.s. energy sector, export oil, grow our economy and create thousands of jobs. my amendment ensures that the intention of this bill is clear. i believe the amendment is consistent with the underlying goals of the bill, and i encourage my colleagues to support its adoption. mr. barton: if the gentleman will yield? mr. messer: i do yield. mr. barton: mr. upton, mr. whitfield and myself support your amendment and ask it be accepted. mr. messer: i thank the chairman. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. speaker, again, i rise in mild opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: i support the amendment by the gentleman from indiana. iran has the fourth largest number of proven oil reserves in the world. in fact, supporters of this bill often state concern over the market impact of increased iranian exports on domestic producer -- producers. while it's hard to understand
12:05 pm
why we need to worry about our crude oil going to a country that is a major net exporter of oil, i have no objection adopting this amendment and making really sure iran doesn't get any of our oil and petroleum products. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana. mr. messer: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. pallone mr. chairman, i'd ask for a recorded -- mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in part b of house report 114-290. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. cuellar: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in part b of house
12:06 pm
report 114-290 offered by mr. cuellar of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 466, the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. cuellar: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm here to, of course, talk about an amendment to h.r. 702, this important legislation before us that will lift this outdated ban on the export of oil, modernize the u.s. energy economy and create u.s. jobs. the amendment that i bring forward is to help minority-serving institutions grow the leaders of the future in the oil and gas industry. the bureau of labor statistics prodicts that hispanics who account for 7 -- predicts that hispanics who account for 74% in the labor force from 2010 to 2020. this ensures that our minority-serving institutions such as hispanic serving institutions, historically black colleges, universities can create competitive and enable work force in our oil
12:07 pm
and gas industry. this will ensure that our nation can continue to compete in the global market far into the future. hispanic-serving institutions are about 12% of the nonprofit colleges and universities, yet they enroll 59% of all the hispanic students. the other part of this amendment, mr. chairman, is that it also calls for the department of energy to encourage public-private partnership between the energy sector and minority-serving institutions. this is an amendment that i think will be good for all workers across the nation and i ask all members to vote in favor of this amendment and support the underlying bill. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. cuellar: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. barton: for purposes of controlling time, i rise in opposition.
12:08 pm
the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barton: i hope we'll accept it on a voice vote. i see mr. rush. i'm willing to recognize my good friend from chicago if he wishes to speak on it. was told you might. i would recognize the gentleman from chicago -- the chair: does the gentleman from texas yield? mr. barton: i yield the one minute prayer, not the five-minute sermon. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one inute. the time has already been claimed. if the gentleman would like to speak. mr. barton: i tell you what. i yield to my friend, my real friend from chicago, as much time as he may consume which couldn't exceed five minutes because that's all i have. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. rush: i want to thank my
12:09 pm
friend for yielding. mr. speaker, i must say that i did not come here to congress to shadow box with the majority party over jobs and economic opportunities for the chronically employed citizens of my district and similar situated districts across the country. mr. speaker, my amendment, which was not allowed by the majority party, would have provided real solutions to real problems. my amendment would have put dollars in the pocketbooks of the unemployed minorities, the unemployed women and the unemployed veterans of this nation. mr. speaker, i must say this amendment before us is like pouring perfume over an overused pig sty. it provides d.o.e. -- and i quote from the amendment, mr. speaker. it provides d.o.e. with the
12:10 pm
authority to continue its ongoing work. in other words, it tells the department of energy, do what you are already doing. mr. speaker, unlike the amendment i offered in the rules committee that was drafted with input and collaboration from the very stakeholders who would benefit most, had it been adopted, there is no specific initiative, no program nor no objectives in the cuellar amendment. mr. speaker, the rush amendment would have established and not encourage but establish partnerships between d.o.e., commerce, the small business administration, minority business development agency, industry, the national minority suppliers, the women's enterprise network council and minority chambers of commerce
12:11 pm
chapters across the nation. the rush amendment would have established commitments for diversity hiring, for vendor and contracting opportunities within the supply chain through ontractual obligations and with a goal of not less than 10% participation by the minority-owned firms by the year 2020. mr. speaker, my amendment would have created regional diversity supply chains specialty centers to develop strategies for minority businesses contracting and vendor opportunities and to -- strategic locations where energy development exists or expanding. the rush amendment would have helped minority and women-owned
12:12 pm
firms form consortiums and partnerships in order to better -- what ifications and the industry is seeking. it would establish a program to provide access to capital for loans, financing and insurance assistance for minority and women-owned business. mr. speaker, the rush amendment would have established, not just encourage, but establish public-private partnerships between minority-owned banks and private investors as well as providing grants to minority-serving institutions to help recruit businesses for energy-related supply chains. so, again, mr. speaker, i am not here to criticize my friend, mr. cuellar. i'm here to just bring up the
12:13 pm
differences between what an imagine near imagine near mendment would do -- imaginary amendment would do. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. cuellar: i appreciate the kind words of the gentleman. i understand the amendment he was trying to get in. actually, i was trying to help get that amendment -- i was trying to get his amendment accepted but it's up to the rules committee and the democracy there. this amendment is very simple. it's something we added in the appropriation bill on different agencies. we all have voted for this in the appropriation bill time after time after time, and it's to help the minority-serving institutions and ask the chairman -- the gentleman from texas to -- and the members to please accept this amendment. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas.
12:14 pm
those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the chair understands that amendment number 8 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in part b of house report 114-290. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in part b of house report 114-290 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 466, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me thank mr. pallone and mr. barton for their kurt cisand as well -- courtesies and as well the rules committee. there has been a lot of discussion on the floor of the house regarding this bill and
12:15 pm
different opinions, and might i add, this is an important and vigorous discussion. i think this is the best of what this congress is all about, but i'd like to take note of h.r. 702, which many of us know came about because of the gas crisis in the 1970's. and this bill simply repeals that portion of the legislation that responded to that crisis. but what i'd like in the bill is, of course, they have in the bill that we as a congress will get a report some 120 days after dealing with the maintenance and the strength of the strategic petroleum reserve. that's a very important national security item. . a savings clause indicates that the president has all of his powers in the light of crisis -- crises and other issues to implement any necessary changes or any necessary restrictions on this legislation. my amendment tracks giving more
12:16 pm
information. not later than 10 years after the date of enactment of this act, the secretary of energy and the secretary of commerce shall jointly transmit to congress a report that reviews the impact of lifting oil import ban under this act as it represents to promoting and supporting and providing for the united states' energy and national security policy. our number one responsibility are the american people. i understand that. both environmentally, with respect to their own energy resources, and certainly with national security. this amendment allows for that report to be on the front side of 10 years. it could be two years from now, three years from now, and the congress can dictate that. u.s. crude production bottomed in 2008 at about seven million barrels per day. it is now more than 11 million barrels per day and it's now possible to go up to 1 million barrels a day -- 18 million barrels a day in 2040. under the strictest environmental concerns. but right now in my district
12:17 pm
they're laying off thousands of people because there is no work. and so i would argue to my colleagues that this amendment provides the insight on what's going on. this bill could provide the g.d.p. would rise by $550 billion to $1.8 trillion between 2015 and 2039. it is estimated in my own congressional job, lifting the ban would create an additional 500 jobs, an additional $270 million in local economy and increase in government revenues at $227 million. this 10-year period under that, by the way, it is up to 10 years, gives a long enough time to abide a probative intelligent assessment of whether there is irreversible damage. amendment number 9 operates as a safety valve and reassures that those who may be skeptical
12:18 pm
get reasonable opportunities to oppose it or get the right information. the same thing with those who may support it. it gives us a basis of empirical data, rigorously analyzed. my amendment can be summed up as follows. for those who are confident of the future, my amendment offers vindication fofment for those who are skeptical of the new change, my amendment will provide the evidence they need to prove their case. i ask my colleagues and reserve my time to support the jackson lee amendment. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. barton: i would rise in mild opposition, which could turn to support. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barton: i want to thank the gentlelady from houston for offering it. is she willing to do this on a voice vote and consider voting for the bill if we accept it? ms. jackson lee: will the gentleman yield? is the gentleman rising to support the gentlelady's amendment with great enthusiasm? mr. barton: i will if you vote for the bill and do a voice vote on your amendment. i'll make it a packaged deal. i'll give you this amendment and the next amendment, double enthusiasm, if they're both voice votes and you actually really do vote for the bill or at least start thinking about it strongly.
12:19 pm
ms. jackson lee: that's a very good -- would the gentleman yield again, please? mr. barton: yes. ms. jackson lee: would the gentleman surmise that amendments that are passed by voice vote are still strong amendments included in the bill as opposed to being you a septemberable to being gotten rid of -- susceptible to being ?otten rid of mr. barton: you have my word. your amendments will be in the conference report that goes to the president if we get that far. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i am always eager to work with my friends on this side of the aisle. mr. ma -- mr. pallone, i'm always eager to work when we're moving forward. so i would offer my amendment and offer it for a voice vote. with that i yield back. mr. barton: i rise, as i just said i would, double enthusiastic support of her amendment. but i'm going to be looking on that board when it comes time to vote. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time? mr. barton: yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, let me simply say, my amendment answers many of the concerns that have been expressed on the floor of the house, by giving
12:20 pm
empirical data, not 10 years and beyond, but in a period of up to 10 years, to let us make further informtific decisions -- informative decisions, the and being able to provide for the national security conscious and being able to provide for the national security -- and being able to provide for the national security. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house p -- printed in part b of house report 114-290. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i have an amendment the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in part b of house by ms. 14-290 offered jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 466, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee,
12:21 pm
and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much. be ask that my amendment considered by my colleagues. my amendment requires within 180 days of enactment the secretaries of energy and commerce submit a report to congress analyzing how lifting the ban on crude oil in particular in exports, will create opportunities for veterans and women. mr. chairman, just a few days ago i went to an initiative called standdown. i've gone on a number of years. that's where most military persons will understand, it is where you come and stand down from battle. in this instance they were veterans, many of them homeless, many of them in great need. obviously social services, substance abuse services and others were offered there. but what i heard from these men who wore the uniform in dignity is they want jobs. i believe that this legislation will provide a strong pro-jobs agenda, growing the economy, as
12:22 pm
my previous amendment said, i do not take lightly the impact of lifting the ban. and therefore my previous amendment would provide the insight on whether or not this is a positive impact. what i can tell you, there's a great need, as has been discussed earlier, about collaborating with historically black colleges and hispanic serving colleges and i've worked on those issues and i've certainly seen the leadership of mr. rush and mr. cuellar. but i will tell you that it is in -- it is indicated that state shale development supports american jobs, $107,000 is the average salary that is given by -- provided by the energy company in energy jobs. 1.7 million employment attributed to upstream conventional oil and natural gas. women fulfill 40% of the vacancies in oil and gas. i'd like to submit this into the record. the chair: it will be covered by general leave. ms. jackson lee: thank you. the government, the administration, is working to
12:23 pm
pair up and find jobs for veterans. unemployment rate for veterans, a constant has been ssue and it is going down. but we need to provide them with other opportunities. they were higher unemployment, as we can see, than the regular work force. so my amendment wants to ensure that if we lift this ban women and veterans will benefit and we know, of course, that we've been pushing our education lpha silts to engage in -- educational facilities to engage in stem. we need jobs, a pipeline for qualified veterans and women looking for jobs right now. i'd ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. it causes us to focus on these vulnerable populations, women, veterans, to direct them into the industry, and might i say, to my constituents, energy companies that i represent, a long list of names that i will
12:24 pm
not name at this time, that we hope that they are focused as well on expanding opportunities in the energy industry for veterans returning -- veterans, returning soldiers, if you will, women and of course, across the board, minorities. this is an industry that is moving and growing and the opportunities should move and grow as well. with that i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. barton: i rise in opposition only to say we support the amendment and we'll honor the deal we just made on the prior amendment. i ask for a yes vote, a voice vote on the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve or yield back? mr. barton: yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman, i thank mr. pallone and i hope that our colleagues have heard us, to emphasize the creation of jobs along with the environment, national security and the energy resources of america. with that i ask for support of the jackson lee amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentlelady
12:25 pm
yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agree -- the mendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 114-290 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by mr. amash of michigan. amendment number 5 by mr. messer of indiana. amendment number 6 by mr. messer of indiana. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a vorded oat on amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 114-290. the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment.
12:26 pm
the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 114-290 offered by mr. amash of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in 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.]
12:27 pm
12:28 pm
12:29 pm
12:30 pm
12:31 pm
12:32 pm
12:33 pm
12:34 pm
12:35 pm
12:36 pm
12:37 pm
12:38 pm
12:39 pm
12:40 pm
12:41 pm
12:42 pm
12:43 pm
12:44 pm
12:45 pm
12:46 pm
12:47 pm
12:48 pm
12:49 pm
12:50 pm
12:51 pm
12:52 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 109, the nays are 306. he amendment is not adopted. the committee will be in order. members will please find a eat. members, please find a seat. take your conversations off the
12:53 pm
floor. the committee will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection -- the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last thursday was a tragic day for the american maritime community and america. an american flag ship en route lost in rico was hurricane with a keeb and with -- joaquin and with its crew. the coast guard, d.o.d. and other government and private sector partners mobilized assets with search crews battling treacherous weather conditions in an attempt to
12:54 pm
find survivors and we appreciate their efforts. mr. hunter: mr. speaker, today our thoughts and prayers are with the crew members' families and loved ones and i ask that the house observe a moment of silence to honor the brave men and women who served on the el faro. the chair: the house will rise and observe a moment of sigh lenls. - silence. without objection, two-minute voting will continue. the the unfinished business is the vote on amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 114-290 by the gentleman from indiana, mr. messer, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redisnate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 offered by mr. messer of indiana.
12:55 pm
the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. a sufficient number having arisen -- members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 .s. house of representatives.]
12:56 pm
12:57 pm
12:58 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 414, the nays are one. he amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the vote on amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 114-290 by the gentleman from indiana, mr. messer, on which the proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 114-290 offered by mr. messer of indiana. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.
12:59 pm
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.]
1:00 pm
1:01 pm
1:02 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 419. the nays are zero. the amendment is adopted. the question is on on the amendment nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule, the committee rises.
1:03 pm
the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 702 and pursuant to house resolution 466 i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has under consideration the bill h.r. 702 and pursuant to house resolution 466 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment. if not the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreedo.
1:04 pm
the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to adapt to crude oil market conditions. the speaker pro tempore: members, please find a vote. take your conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed in the current
1:05 pm
form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: moves to recommit the bill h.r. 702 -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: mr. speaker, i reserve a right to make a point of order against the bill that it's not germane. the speaker pro tempore: a point of order is reserved. he clerk will suspend. the house will be in order. the clerk will continue. the clerk: mr. huffman of california moves to recommit the bill h.r. 702 to the committee on energy and commerce with instructs to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. page 3, line 17, insert, nothing in this act prevents the president or any other federal official from enforcing federal laws or regulations necessary to protect human health, the environment or public safety, including the safe drinking water act, 42 u.s.c. 300-f. the hazardous liquid pipeline act of 1979, public law 96-129.
1:06 pm
the pipeline safety improvement act of 2002. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> parliamentary inquiry. mr. barton: if i make a point of order that the motion to recommit is not germane and is not germane, there's no vote, is that correct? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will not respond to a hypothetical. point of order has been reserved. mr. barton: mr. chairman, i make a point of order that the amendment is not germane. the motion to recommit is not germane. oh, it is germane. oh, i withdraw that. the speaker pro tempore: the reservation is withdrawn. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. he gentleman will suspend.
1:07 pm
members are advised to take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. huffman: thank you, let me begin with the usual stipulations. this is the final amendment to the bill. it won't kill the bill or send it back to committee. when this is adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. so there's no procedural reason to oppose this motion to recommit. let's talk about the substance. now, we have heard a lot of debate this morning about the need to give big oil the -- big oil, the most profitable industry in the world, yet another advantage. for years, americans have been told that we have to drill, baby, drill, the theory that we always hear is that we need to extract every barrel of oil from every acre of american soil to keep gas prices low and to provide, quote, energy security. but as soon as american gas prices started to drop, the
1:08 pm
curtain was raised and the truth was revealed. the real reason for drill, baby, drill -- surprise, surprise -- was to give big oil the chance to maximize their profits on the world market. it's not enough they've been able to game the tax code for a century with billions of dollars of tax breaks not available to other taxpayers or businesses. it's not enough that they continue to enjoy access to our public lands and waters for oil drilling even though they are no longer paying into the water and conservation fund. now, as a reminder, for the past 50 years, the land and water conservation fund was an agreement, a compact between the american people and big oil. it said when we let oil and gas companies drill and profit from drilling in federal waters they have to dedicate a fraction of the profits, just a fraction to protect our great outdoors for future generations. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman will suspend.
1:09 pm
mr. huffman: the deal is they have to dedicate a fraction of those profits to protecting our great outdoors for future generations so that our grandchildren will be able to hike and hunt and fish in our parks and wildlife refuges. the land and water conservation fund was allowed -- shamefully allowed to lapse at the beginning of this month, and the majority hasn't scheduled a single vote or even a hearing to get it back on the books. no, all of these concessions to oil and the gas industry are not enough for this house. with today's bill, the house majority is saying that american oil and gas companies can drill more, export more and realize even greater profits no matter the environmental consequences, no matter the consequences to health and safety. as presently written, the underlying bill, h.r. 702 would permanently ensure that no export restrictions for any reason could be implemented or enforced in the future. that's what this bill says.
1:10 pm
that is breathtaking in its devotion to the oil and gas industry's agenda. now, my motion to recommit would ensure that president and federal government agencies charged with protecting human health, the environment and public safety can continue to do their job that constituents rely on them to do. specifically, with this amendment, we'll ensure that bedrock health and safety laws, like the safe drinking water act and the hazardous liquid pipeline act, that laws like that won't be cast aside in favor of big oil's desire to sell more crude overseas. if you think about it, this is a very straightforward amendment, so i just want to ask my colleagues a question. should crude oil exports trump the safe drinking water act? should big oil profits trump the need for pipeline safety and pipeline inspection? not.urse
1:11 pm
we need to protect safe drinking water. we need to ensure pipeline safety, and so, my colleagues, i urge you to vote yes on this m.t.r. to improve this bill and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. barton: i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. barton: first of all, i want to thank the minority for giving us a one-page motion to recommit that i can actually read and understand. i have read it, i don't like it, it's not necessary, it's redundant, i oppose it, please vote against it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the motion is not adopted. mr. huffman: request a recorded vote.
1:12 pm
the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those supporting a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered and approval of the journal, if ordered. 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.]
1:13 pm
1:14 pm
1:15 pm
1:16 pm
1:17 pm
1:18 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on his vote the yeas are -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 179. the nays are 242. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill.
1:19 pm
so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, he ayes have it. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i ask 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. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
1:20 pm
1:21 pm
1:22 pm
1:23 pm
1:24 pm
1:25 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 261. the nays are 159. with zero voting present. the bill is passed. without objection a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal on which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have t the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on the budget may at any time before 6:00 p.m. on friday,
1:26 pm
october 16, 2015, file a privileged report to accompany a message to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title 2 of the concurrent resolution of the budget for fiscal year 2016. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.
1:27 pm
1:28 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-meant speeches. -- one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? he gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. members are requested to take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, thank you. i rise today to honor the men and women of little rock air force base and the surrounding communities for their 60 years
1:29 pm
of dedicated service to the defense of our nation. in its long history it's been many important missions, including the reconnaissance and bombing missions, and it's now known for its c-130 capital of the world. mr. hill: little rock air force base is one of the most technologically advanced and well run military installations in the entire country. it is the tactical airlift center of excellence. it's the -- its base builds the foundations of americans' combat airlift capacity and trains the world's best airlifters to fly, fight, and win. from lifesaving humanitarian aid to delivering the men and women and their supplies, little rock air force base depends -- defends freedom. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maine seek recognition? ms. pingree: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: does
1:30 pm
the gentlelady ask unanimous consent? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it's with great sadness that i'm here today to honor the memory of the crew of elfarro, lost in the hurricane in the bahamas last week. four people from my state, the state of maine, were aboard. michael holland of north wilton, dillon meckland of brockland, danielle of rockland, and the captain, a man of great experience, mike davidson of wind ham. in maine we have a strong connection to those who make results ing on
1:31 pm
have been different we owe those men and well, men and women, for risk their lives. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize ron gifford for his dedication to creating and nurturing a trained work force for the growing industrial base in stark county. mrs. walorski: ron is part of skill, a two-year -- a two-year school for juniors and seniors. skill also trains industrial employees, offers several continuing ed courses, computer classes and automotive tech program. the importance of skill and ron is -- many of the skills needed to compete in the global market of the 21st century are technically demanding. currently the demand for qualified workers is increasing at a pace far greater than
1:32 pm
existing communities can produce. thanks to ron's dedication, skill has focused on developing and training more workers to meet this demand, building a strong work force to ensure the growth of our economy. mr. speaker, please joining me in congratulating ron gifford. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. just a few weeks before i was sworn into office, a deranged gunman entered sandy hook elementary school in connecticut, murdered 20 young children and six school employees. what was the response of this congress to make sure that never happened again? nothing. despite an overwhelming amount of support across the country for universal background checks and bipartisan legislation to implement them, this congress
1:33 pm
did nothing. across my district in san diego, moms, dads, college students, seniors have all been calling on us to take action that will keep our children and our community safe. mr. peters: they're angry at our inability to act and i share their anger. we should pass the bipartisan thompson-king bill on background checks, and we should do it today. that would be a good start to addressing this devastating problem. it's time to do something. thank you, mr. speaker. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from maine seek recognition? ms. poll quinn: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. maritime n: maine academy is one of the finest schools in the world to train our ship captains, engineers
1:34 pm
and navigators. last week the cargo ship el faro succumbed to hurricane joaquin en route from florida to puerto rico. during this horrible tragedy, 33 individuals likely perished, including five graduates of the maine maritime academy. captain michael davidson was 53. cond mate danielle randolph, 34. mitchell was 26. and dillon meckland was 23. mr. speaker, some were married, some had kids. one was engaged. and one was on his maiden voyage. all of these individuals were children of moms and dads. the great state of maine and our country is so proud of our brave mariners and grateful for
1:35 pm
them helping us live better lives. i know i speak, mr. chair, for the entire congress in extending our thoughts and prayers for their families. may god rest their souls and let themremain mariners forever. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> seek permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to recognize and congratulate la familia counseling service which is based out of hayward in my district as well as livermore. it is a latino-based multicultural organization committed to strengthening the emotional values of individuals and the preservation of families. their services help build strong families and communities, fight cycles of
1:36 pm
poverty and bridge education and health disparities. mr. swalwell: they offer job training, education, leadership development opportunities for disenfranchised youth living in my neighborhoods i worked with them as a prosecutor in alameda. appropriately named the board lumes and staff at la familia, they make -- renee, dr. claudia aguilar, mary dwyer and yvette flores are working very hard and i congratulate them on their 40 years and what is to come to help the families in the east bay and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the chamber for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to onor the 33 sailors of the el
1:37 pm
fargo ship which disappeared during hurricane joaquin. an american flag ship had just left jacksonville, florida, for san juan, puerto rico. the 791-foot ship is believed to have sunk after facing 130-mile-an-hour winds. this week they found debris and they call it the worst maritime disaster in over 30 years as tragically the entire crew is presumed lost. 13 of these brave souls were from our state in florida, but regardless of where they came from, our thoughts and prayers are with the families and riendshe crews on the el ferro and with the brave men and women in our coast guard attempting the rescue. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the dantlewoman from f recognition? without objection, the
1:38 pm
gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. brown: thank you, mr. speaker, and members of the house. my hearts and prayers go to the families of the 31 members nboard the cargo ship, el ferro, which means bright shining star, which disappeared thursday during the hurricane. i held prayer vigils with the families and with several ministers all damond and we're keeping the families in our prayers. i want to commend the coast guard for everything they do in the area of maritime security and environmental protection. i worked closely with the agency for many years, and i want to commend the merchant marines who played a key role in our nation's economy and several other during peace and war times. i'm going to submit the names 17 ll of the crewmembers, was from jacksonville, florida.
1:39 pm
as i was leaving church, one person, jackie jones, had a daycare, and the kid came up to me and asked congresswoman, where is popper? i can tell you i'm going to do all i can to make sure this tragedy doesn't happen again. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? ms. mcsally: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. mcsally: mr. speaker, in celebration of hispanic heritage month, i rise to pay tribute to an important hispanic leader and public servant from my district. the late governor raul castro. born in mexico and growing up outside of douglas, arizona, governor castro overcame many obstacles in his early life and attended the arizona state teachers college. he earned a law degree from the university of arizona, later serving as county attorney,
1:40 pm
superior court judge and first mexican american to serve as governor in the state of arizona. he served as ambassador to el salvador and bolivia and argentina. there will be a ceremony renaming the douglas port of entry after governor castro. can i think of no more fitting tribute for a person who served as a role model and bridge to a generation of young hispanics looking to enter public life. we are stronger and more diverse nation thanks to the influence and hard work of hispanic americans like governor castro, and i'm proud to join in recognizing their invaluable contributions this month. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend and speak to the house for one minute, please. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much. mr. speaker, today we were talking about jobs in h.r. 702, and i supported the legislation to create jobs for my district and for america and to provide
1:41 pm
opportunities to ensure the national security and protecting the environment. but we also have to realize our seniors that helped build this country. today i joined in legislation, seniors deserve a raise, to be able to connect these seniors to a cost of living increase to the consumer price index. but there is a gross problem that is coming up and that is the doubling of the cost of medicare part b. for 30% of beneficiaries in 2016, their cost is projected to increase by 52%, from $104 to $159. this increase will be accompanied by an increase in part b deductible for $147 to $223. congress must act to protect the approximately six million medicare beneficiaries who will see a significant increase in their medicare premiums and deductibles. it is very important to realize that in my state of texas would have $159 million increase. it is my intention to introduce legislation, a sense of congress that in the case of congress must act to protect
1:42 pm
our seniors. they helped build this nation. what are we doing to help them? give them a raise and protect their medicare. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. are there any more one-minute requests? the chair lays before the following the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. defazio of oregon for today, and mr. payne of new jersey for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 2:00 p.m. on tuesday, october 13, 2015, and that the order of the house of january 6, 2015, regarding morning hour debate not apply on that day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced
1:43 pm
policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the recognition. i appreciate you staying on the floor with me today. it's been a week of inside the beltway activity. i can't find a single member of congress on this floor, and i've been talking to a lot of them who ran for congress because they thought the most important job we were going to have was picking our house leadership. it's an important responsibility. it's an important job, mr. speaker. i can't tell you how difficult it is to lead 435 leaders. it's not a shortage of leaders we have here. sometimes it's a shortage of good followers we have here, but nobody ran for congress for that. you ran for congress because we have serious business that the american people ask us to be
1:44 pm
about and most of that business is not inside leadership conversations. it's about the american economy. it's about feeding one's family. it's about having a predictable future for one's children. it's about opportunity. i want to begin, mr. speaker, with three of the challenges that are out in front of us. the reason good leadership in this institution is important is because we have serious challenges. when i got here in 2011, we elected john boehner speaker of the house because john boehner said we can do amazing things in divided government. we don't have to sit back and wait until we control all branches of government as republicans. the democrats don't have to sit back and wait until they control everything, mr. speaker. we can do amazing things together, and that's exactly what he did and we did it around, mr. speaker, finding those things on which americans agree. i have up here the looming insolvencies for our major
1:45 pm
social safety net programs, mr. speaker. social security disability insurance reaches insolvency next year. next year. not 20 years from now, not 10 years from now. next year. if you're an american and you're counting on social security disability insurance to provide for you and your family because you paid into it faithfully your entire career, now you must rely on if, we have a cash flow situation next year leading to insolvency. we go next to medicare. insolvent in 2030. medicare. social security, insolvent in 2035. social security and medicare as you know, mr. speaker, are funded by payroll taxes. payroll taxes are that fica line on our pay stubs. t's the largest tax at 15.3%
1:46 pm
of every workers' paycheck in this country, it's the largest tax that most american families pay. i want you to think about that. here we are talking about earning the american people's trust. here we are talking about delivering for the american people on their priorities. the largest tax that most americans pay goes to fund two programs that we know with certainty as we sit here today aren't going to survive in their current configuration. the cash flow just won't allow it. but, mr. speaker, i'm not here to preach doom and gloom. i'm here to preach opportunity. i'm preaching opportunity because i work with 435 other people here who also -- 434 other people here who also believe if we work together we can do amazing things for the american people. i've got a chart here, mr. speaker, you can't see it from your perch, but it's the projected economic growth rates in this country. again, i'm trying to
1:47 pm
distinguish what's happening in terms of a leadership discussion here with what's happening in a broader leadership discussion about america. what i show here is that year after year after year for the past three years represented here on the screen, mr. speaker, but it goes back five years. -- five years, every year the congressional budget office, group of economists that help us to craft numbers in a bipartisan way, every year the congressional budget office reports that their anticipated economic growth for america is lower in this year than it was the year before. it was lower last year than the year before that. and the year before that it was lower that year than the year before that. when we fail to succeed together, mr. speaker, it's not an academic conversation. when we succeed in the wrong way, it's not an oops moment. it has a real impact on economic growth in this
1:48 pm
country, and these may be colors on a chart, mr. speaker, but what they represent are jobs for families. what they represent are manufacturers who decide to stay in america or leave america. what they represent are entrepreneurs who either succeeded in their business or who were crushed by regulatory urden. these decisions we make have consequences, mr. speaker. i have an interest rate chart here. you can't tell, but what you would see if you could see it, mr. speaker, is that we are borrowing money today at the lowest interest rate in american history. it's virtually free. it's virtually free today because we have the best of all the worst economies on the planet. folks are interested in buying our debt right now. there are stories in the "wall street journal" about the germans dumping our debt. but because markets are so frightened around the globe there is more demand than there are folks selling.
1:49 pm
i put the interest rates up, mr. speaker, because i'm talking about solving big problems today. we are going to talk about big problems. we are going to talk about big solutions that we have come to here in this body, but too often when we talk about balancing the budget, it sounds ike it's a numbers game. the only numbers game balancing the budget is is the numbers game $320 million, because that's how many americans -- 320 million, because that's how many americans are living in this country and counting on us to succeed for them. when we borrow money, we end up paying interest on that money. am so weary of the political ecochamber, mr. speaker, that ells the story of folks on the left who say, i want every program in america to succeed. in fact, i want to spend even more on it. or folks on the right who say,
1:50 pm
i will never, ever raise your taxes. you don't have to pay for those programs that you want. because both sides are wrong. what i have here, mr. speaker, is a chart of the interest that we are paying on our national debt today. we'll talk about the interest we are going to be paying 10 years from now if we don't solve the problem, but this red line represents the interest we are paying on our national debt today. $229 billion this year. balancing the budget is not an academic conversation. balancing the budget is the difference between spending $229 billion on interest on the debt versus other american priorities. you can't see it, mr. speaker, but education is represented by this blue line. i want you to see that. the federal government spends more money in interest on our national debt, even though we borrowed that money at the lowest interest rates in
1:51 pm
american history, teaser rates, we spend more on interest on than we spend bt on education for our children. we are trying to pass a transportation bill right now, mr. speaker. we are trying to put people back to work in america building roads so we'll have the best infrastructure in the world. so that we'll move goods and services to market better than any other nation in the world. so we can have our people moving from place to place creating jobs and economic activity better than any place else in the world. we spend half, half of what we spend on interest payments this year we'll spend on transportation, mr. speaker. we spend the same amount on interest payments in 2015 that we will spend on education and transportation combined. i want you to think about that, mr. speaker. we could double the spending on education in this country, as my friends on the left propores
1:52 pm
to do. we could double spending on transportation in this country, as my friends on the left propose to do, if we would balance the budget and get out of the interest payment business, m divides us. this is something that unites us. environment and natural resources. $41 billion being spent on buy the federal government this year. we spend five times more than that on interest payments. science, space, and technology, mr. speaker. who is going to have that next manned mission to space? who is going tonight first to have a human being on mars? what are we going to learn out beyond the stars? 23 endit when we spend times more on interest payments than we spend on all energy policy combined. when aim talking about balancing the budget, mr. speaker, when i'm talking about aking tough choices, i'm not
1:53 pm
an academic conversation about making the numbers balance. i'm talking about a reordering of american priorities where we would rather spend money on our children, on our roads, on our environment, on exploration, on next generation energy than we would paying back debts of the past. we are going to make good on our debts. but we can control whether or not we are paying those debts down or whether we are running those debts up. interest that we pay on our national debt isn't a number on a ledger. it's a category that pushes out so many other american priorities. that's this year, mr. speaker. this chart represents this year. if you fast forward 10 years under current law, we will be spending more on our national debt than we spend on national
1:54 pm
security. i don't mean paying back our debt, mr. speaker. i mean, we will be spending more in interest payments on our national debt than we will be spending protecting the national security of the united statesp of america. that's why former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mullen, said the largest threat to america's national security is rising debt, because our debt and the accompanying interest payments are squeezing out so many other american priorities. mr. speaker, folks don't understand how the american budget works. i put a pie chart up here that captures that. we are going to get into some pretty serious debates here on the floor of this house in the next couple of months. primarily about something that we call discretionary spending. discretionary spending, i represented up here, mr. speaker, by blue pie slices on the pie chart. it's defense and nondefense spending are the two big categories, which means defense
1:55 pm
and almost everything else you think of is the federal government. those decisions, these in blue, mr. speaker, that you and i have to make every year, that distinguishes it from these decisions in red. social security spending, medicare spending, medicaid spending, interest on the national debt, other mandatory programs. these programs in red, mr. speaker, as you know, we won't revisit those this year. yes, the constitution requires that every dollar appropriated from the treasury be appropriated from the house. but the house in 1935 decided that some of these dollars needed to go out the door and they are still going out the door today. we can't change it without passing a new bill in the house, a new bill in the senate, and a new bill that the president signs. we spend all of our time in this body, mr. speaker, arguing about nibbling around the edges on the blue categories of the chart, which is the small third of the pie. the real challenge in balancing the budget lies in these red
1:56 pm
slices of the pie. i'm going to tell you why. what i have charted here, mr. speaker, is a look at revenues in this country as a percent of g.d.p. so often we measure our success against the size of the economy. what are we spending relative to the size of the economy. if our population grows, if our economy grows, the tax base will grow, and so, too, in many cases, will our expenses grow. we chart these things against the size of the economy. this red line represents our historic revenues going back to 1965. all the taxes through the nixon administration, the end of the ford administration. reagan administration. all the way through to today. we chart it out to 2045 when you see this line go flat on revenues, mr. speaker, it's because we are just predicting that they are level as a percent of the economy. but what i have also charted are the spending priorities that were in the red slice of
1:57 pm
the pie shown earlier. the mandatory spending slices of the pie. this blue line represents medicaid and other federal health care expenditures like the president's affordable care act. this green line represents medicare, created in 1965, it used to be nonexistence. now it's a very large slice of the pie. again, represents some of the largest taxes that the american people pay. this white section here represents social security, mr. speaker. and this blue line represents net interest. mr. speaker, if you could see that on the end of this chart what you would see is medicaid spending is growing quickly, but on a predictable lean -- line. medicare spending is quickly but on a predictable line. social security spending almost flat, mr. speaker, even though it's a big part of the pie, what's growing is interest payments. and when the blue line crosses the red line, mr. speaker,
1:58 pm
that's where these four programs, interest on the national debt, social security payments, medicare payments, and medicaid payments, where those programs alone consume every single penny in any tax aid by any american. this out about 10 years from now. about 10 years from now every single penny that every single american pays in taxes will be consumed by these four programs . these programs will be insolvent because there is no more money. and every other priority will have been squeezed out of the budget. by every other priority, mr. speaker, i mean we are cutting transportation to zero. we are cutting education to zero. we are cutting national parks to zero. we are cutting national ecurity to zero.
1:59 pm
this is not an academic conversation about balancing the budget, it's a national security conversation. because we need to fund that priority. it's an education conversation because we need to fund that priority. it's an environment and parks conversation because we need to und that priority. these mandatory programs -- program dollars to consume every single penny of revenue. just to be clear, mr. speaker, in case there's any confusion, some folks say, well, rob, why don't you raise more revenue. let's just raise taxes on the american people then we'll have enough money to make that happen. mr. speaker, what i'm showing you on this chart is, no. that won't solve the problem. this green line, gi from 2006 out to 2044 here, mr. speaker. and this green line represents historical revenue, when we hit this big economic down turn over the past five years, mr. speaker, revenues collapsed. turns out if the american people can't find a job, the american people can't pay any
2:00 pm
taxes. . i say to my friends on the left, if you want more taxes in the tax base. create more jobs. when we ran out of jobs, we ran out of money, yet we spent even more because american families were hurting in that period of time. i graphed this out to 2024 and what you see is, under current law, this red line represents current law. if we add no new programs and don't spend any additional dollars, we just follow the make no new nd promises to the american people, the spending required by current law more than doubles current receive news. so we're not talking about raising somebody's taxes a percent or two. we are talking about doubling everyone's taxes, all across this country, in every category and when we do that, mr.
2:01 pm
speaker, that will solve the problem until about 2030 and then that won't be enough to fund either. taxes are not the problem. it's not that we aren't raising enough money, our problem is that current law is spending too much money and we have to come together to fix it. well, now, i get to the good news part of the presentation, mr. speaker. i'm talking about bad news and the debt is squeezing out every other funding priority in america. bad news that the major social programs of this nation are fiscally insolvent and there is no way to tax the american people at a high enough rate to fund those priorities. the good news is we have come together in this body to work on it on the spending side together. look at this, mr. speaker. it's unbelievable. folks, folks sometimes ask me back home, why do you take so
2:02 pm
many charts down to the house floor. why are you talking about this? my answer is, no one believes me. no one believes me. i challenge you to go home and challenge your constituents that when the big class of 2010 got here when republicans took over the house in 2011 and had divided government, as john boehner says, you can do big things in divided government. $3. we were leaving, trillion as a nation. the baby boomers began to retire in this window, so 10,000, mr. speaker, mr. speaker, 10,000 men and women every day who had been paying medicare and social security taxes their entire lives began applying for the benefits that they earned during that lifetime of work. two of the biggest categories of
2:03 pm
federal spending growing because of all of these new applicants to the program, all these folks coming in to cash in and what happened in divided government? we came toying in this body in what is the best vote i have taken in the 4 1/2 years with a voting card and we passed the budget control act. i didn't get everything i wanted. my republican colleagues didn't get everything they wanted. the president didn't get everything he wanted, but we made a step forward for america and we cut total federal spending. we changed our priorities, mr. speaker. we began to look and see what was essential federal spending and what was kind of nice to do. what did we have to do to meet the promises we were making to america. and so total federal spending, not funny washington, d.c. math,
2:04 pm
total dollar bills going out the door from the federal government dropped from 2011 to 2012. i never it before in my lifetime, mr. speaker. never seen it before in my lifetime, but we weren't done. when you put people in here together you can do neat things where we all have skin in the game and trying to accomplish a goal, you can do some amazing 2013, o from 2013 to still with 10,000 men and women a day applying for new social security and medicare benefits that they have earned, we cut total federal spending again. again. not funny washington, d.c. math, but reprioritizing what those goals were, the american people
2:05 pm
sent us here to achieve and trying to achieve those goals, not mause it's a math exercise because if we continue don't, interest is going to squeeze all the other priorities that we share as a nation. mr. speaker, two years in a row while the population was growing , while the economy was struggling, while seniors were retiring at a record pace, we came together and reprioritized federal spending to unburden the next generation. mr. speaker, we couldn't do that alone as republicans and couldn't have done it alone as democrats. we can only do that working together, and we did, two years in a row, first time, mr. speaker, in anybody's lifetime on this floor.
2:06 pm
i chart it a different way, mr. speaker, because we spend so much time beating up on each other if we are failures. congress has a 12% approval rating and we seem to tell everybody how awful we are. just terrible. folks can't get along. everybody hates each other. everyone is on the take. where does that come from? what kind of sense does that make? we have a lot of great people on the floor of the house who leave their families and their communities to come here on a mission that their constituents sent them to do and in every category, i have charted three things, i have charted what we call discretionary spending. that's what most people think of, parks, courts, environment, transportation, national security, all of those things you think of as government is here on the green line, discretionary spending. red line is the mandatory
2:07 pm
spending, medicare, medicaid, social security, mandatory programs. blue line is total spending across the whole government and what i have shown here, these are not inflation adjusted dollars but actual dollars going out the door, this dotted line represents where the spending was going and where the coppingsal budget office, where they predicted federal government was going to go when john boehner took over as speaker in 2011. before we had divided government before we were able to come together and do big things. the solid line represents what is actually happening with federal spending and what you see, mr. speaker, even on the mandatory spending programs, we are getting reductions over what was anticipated, certainly on the discretionary programs we are getting reductions. total federal spending, we are
2:08 pm
getting reductions. folks think nothing is happening here. well, for pete's sake, you have to balance the budget and make these things happen. i can't make everybody agree with me on everything. we could probably solve this in a week or two, but there are 435 of us and that's not all of us but we have 100 folks away in the senate. you know what they say about the senate? they say the difference between a senator and god is god knows he's not a senator. you have heard that, haven't you. the power on the other side of the hill has to be reckoned with, too, not to mention the folks down at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. but we all got together, 435 of us and one president at 1600 pennsylvania avenue and we bent the lines on spending. spending still going up?
2:09 pm
it is. what you see here, we have curtailed it inside our current window. it's the out years where the rise really begins. why is it rising? look here, discretionary spending, these are the priorities we talked about earlier. that's going done, flat line going out over the 10-year horizon. mandatory spending is still going up. when we talk about what the problem is with spending in this country and talk what the challenge is with balancing the budget, it's not that we are spending a little money here or there on education or transportation or the courts or the parks or even national defense. the problem is that you have promised me i'm in my 40's, you promised me social security and medicare benefits that you can't limb up to. there isn't enough money in the trust funds for me to access it
2:10 pm
when i retire. you need to be honest and tell me that today so i have another 30 years to prepare for it. more young people in america, more millenials believe they would see a u.f.o. in their lifetime than a social security check. this is the largest tax that most americans pay and we have broken the trust as a spending body here in government that young people who are paying that fica tax, they don't believe they'll ever see a penny from it. we have made these changes together, mr. speaker. we can do better. we can make more. but the arguments that the american people are going to hear. the arguments that the american people are going to hear over the next four months are going to be about a billion here and a billion there when we have $100
2:11 pm
frillion problem. the argument that the folks are going to hear over the next four months are going to be focused on this green area, this body is going to become consumed with nibbling around the edges on discretionary spending on which we have already succeeded. we have already begun the process of redefining those parties where we haven't done enough is on mandatory spending. i've got to find a way, mr. speaker. we've got to find a way to come together to do the heavy lifting that is mandatory spending. no one is going to go to any senior in america and tell them that we are going to pull the rug out from under them now that they have retired. nobody is proposing that. nobody is talking about that. if you are a is senior citizen in america, rest assured that the only thing that anyone is working on here is making sure the trust funds survive to pay
2:12 pm
you those benefits that have been promised. when we are talking about making changes, we are talking to changes of my generation and younger folks to connect the reality which is we can't afford those promises with the reality i'm still paying those taxes and redefining that relationship, mr. speaker, that america can keep the promises. i don't mind delivering bad news to folks. you have to pay for what you want. you want more benefits, have to raise your taxes. right now we are providing more benefits without raising taxes. we are raising taxes on our children and grandchildren. we won't cut benefits on each other but our children and grandchildren. instead there is a better way forward. but we have to find it together. again, i put the charts up because folks won't believe it. these are actual dollars.
2:13 pm
but this chart represents the dollars that we have control over in this body. the dollars that we have to get together and decide on every year. 2/3 of the budget goes out the door whether the people show up for work. the dollars that go out the door because we show up for work, we have been reprioritizing, reallocating, refocusing every year. and the result is more effective, more efficient federal government to accomplish the priorities that the american people sent us here to accomplish and we are borrowing less from our children and grandchildren. it's a morality issue. this is the federal deficit. this is the money we are borrowing from our children and grandchildren. when george bush was leaving office and if he were here on the floor of the house today, he would tell it was no source of pride for him. as he was leaving office he ran
2:14 pm
up the single largest deficit in american in history. together in divided government, they came and ran up the single largest annual deficit in american history. this one, you can't see it. this little bitty one that is too small to read on the chart. this was once the largest deficit in american history. then we left divided government and unified government where one party controlled everything and went to this deficit for one year and this deficit for the next year and this deficit for the next year. deficits, mr. speaker, two and three times larger than the deficit that george bush set as the highest annual deficit in american history. .
2:15 pm
i wouldn't have supported that spending had i been here at that time. i wasn't in congress at that time. but those deficits are a reality. those dollars have been borrowed. that money is now being repaid with interest every day of the week. i take that back. no, it's not. we don't repay a penny of our debt. i don't know if we've ever had that conversation. we don't repay a penny. let's be clear. we pay interest on our national debt, we just keep borrowing. when a principal payment comes down, we borrow more money from someone else to pay back the interest in principal that we borrowed from people years ago. we don't pay back a penny. we just borrow more and more and more. these are -- represent increasing borrowing amounts. well, mr. speaker, this is the first budget that that class of 2010 got to work on together. this is the second. this is the third. this is the fourth. this is where we are right now. we're making progress together. we're doing this together.
2:16 pm
not as a mathematical exercise, as a moral imperative not to borrow and mortgage the future of our children and our grandchildren. we're headed in the right direction, but we've got to do more. i don't want to look like i'm patting us on the back, mr. speaker. the challenge is enormous. and we're grappling with it, but look at this chart that represents historical deficits. back again as a percent of g.d.p. much these other charts i showed you were in actual dollars going out the door. we use percent of g.d.p. so we can compare apples to apples because a dollar going out the door in 1942 would have been more money than a dollar going out the door today. so we do it as a percent of the economy to try to make it be comparable. we go back to 1965 here, mr. speaker. we borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow, throughout all the 1980's we borrowed. do you remember those
2:17 pm
conversations in the 19 0s, mr. speaker? -- 1980's, mr. speaker? where folks thought ronald reagan and tip o'neill in congress were going to borrow use in oblivion in we thought the 1980's were the dark days of spending because we were running up deficits that were so largement here those are, mr. speaker. these, what look like high points then but turn out to be low points by more recent history's standards. these are those 1980 deficits. these are the early clinton deficits. these surpluses are the successes that newt gingrich and bill clinton had together. again, divided government producing results. we want back to unified government here with not so good results. we went to divided government, now we're getting back on track. but if you look out, and i've projected another 10 years out, mr. speaker, if we do nothing deficits begin to rise again. under current law, if we do nothing deficits begin to rise again.
2:18 pm
yes, we have come together in the budget control act and we've done amazing things. we've come together to end what was called the sustainable growth rate. they call it the doc fix. i don't you know why they call it that. it was a patient fix. a gimmick in law that was undermining health care security for all seniors. we came together and we fixed that. we made changes to the medicare program. that both solved the current problem and prevented future problems. reinvesting more money in the trust fund. putting off those deficits. we can do those things together. but we've got to start now, mr. speaker. again, we're going to talk over the next four months about a billion here and a billion there. i want to talk about a trillion here and a trillion there. this chart, mr. speaker, represents the nature of our challenge. to what to get back i'd call federal debt levels that are historically normal,
2:19 pm
if it's ok to confess that, yes, we have a chart that says, as america, let's not have debt that's incredibly high, let's just have debt that's kind of averagely high. that's what we're going to define as success. just averagely high debt. averagely dangerous debt. we're going to define that as success. and to get to that point, mr. speaker, if we start today, we're going to have to deal with about 1.1% of g.d. . that's going to be the size of the -- g.d.p. that's going to be the size of the change. we're going to have to deal with about 1% of the size of the entire economy. what's that going to be? a 1% increase in taxes, a 1% reduction in spending? no, it's much larger than that. g.d.p. is the entire american economy. federal spending and federal taxes are just a very small part of that. we talk about moving the needle on 1% of g.d.p., we're talking about big, big dollars. it's a huge challenge.
2:20 pm
huge challenge. if we started today. the tale i'm telling, mr. speaker, is if we wait five years, the challenge gets 30% harder. it's a huge challenge today. some would argue it's an insurmountable challenge today if we fail to address it today, mr. speaker. it will be 30% harder just five years down the road. mr. speaker, wait 10 years down the road, it's almost twice as hard. lmost twice as hard to concher 10 years during -- conquer 10 years down the road. we don't talk about social security going bankrupt in 2035 because we're trying to be alarmist. we talk about it going bankrupt in 2035 because the time to solve that is today. we talk about medicare going bankrupt in 2030 not to be alarmist, but because the time to solve that is today. these funding challenges that
2:21 pm
we have are hard today, they're twice as hard tomorrow. we have to find the courage today to come together and make these changes. now, to keep things as they are, what you want to do is make things better, you see the challenge is even harder. what you want to do is begin to pay some debt back, the challenges are even larger. i'm not setting my sights on the big line, mr. speaker. i'm trying to focus on the little line. because success begets success. when we came together and solved the budget control act, we were then able to come together and solve the medicare challenge. when we came together and solved the medicare challenge, we were then able to come together and solve our defense challenge. one time and one time and one time and one time. you wake up 365 days later, you find out you've really gotten ome work done. there are a lot of numbers on this chart, mr. speaker. i'll send you a copy.
2:22 pm
of it. but we're talking about a 14% revenue increase or a 13% spending increase today. today. to begin this process. the size of our challenge today, the challenge that i said was easy, the challenge i said we could achieve together, the challenge i said that divided government gave us an opportunity to be successful at, that is a 14% revenue increase. 14% tax hike today, or a 13% spending cut today. and then we need to do it again next year and again next year and again the year after that. this is the easy challenge, mr. speaker. we have come together to create the largest deficit reduction package in the history of the country. republicans, democrats, congress, the white house, we did it. we have time to do it again. i know there's an election year
2:23 pm
coming. i know folks want to focus on who's going to win in november. i know folks want democrats to try to take over congress, republicans to try to take over the white house. i know that's the national conversation. but which ever side of that battle you pick, wouldn't your candidate be advantaged if republicans and democrats had been successful for the american people on yet another big challenge? there's only one way forward and it's hard. there's only one way forward and it's together. please, let us not burn bridges quibbling over a billion here and a billion there over the next four months. $1 billion is a lot of money. a lot of money. but our problems are trillion-dollar problems. and i want us to join together to solve them because i know that we can. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
2:24 pm
the chair would entertain a motion to adjourn. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on tuesday,
2:25 pm
2:26 pm
host: "the new york times" reports that outgoing speaker boehner and kevin mccarthy who dropped out of the speaker's race have been trying to cajole congressman ryan into running and several lawmakers leaving the conversation meeting in the basement of the capitol said they believed mr. ryan was softening his position. even though paul ryan has repeatedly said he doesn't want the job. next we'll hear from representative mccarthy and several other republican members leaving the g.o.p. meeting this morning.
2:27 pm
reporter: can you tell me what you were saying? he has to decide on his own? come over here. can you come to the mike? please, sir. mr. mccarthy: we have a very good conference, working together. trying to work together. i know a lot of speculation about who should run and others . paul is looking at it, but it's his decision. if he decides to do it he'd be an amazing speaker. but he's got to decide on his own. reporter: you said that the party needs to hit rock bottom. what did you mean by that? >> you heard it here first. reporter: what kind of rules are are you discussing? >> all kinds of discussions on rules. mr. dent: i don't pretend to be an expert on rules. issues like, you know, you need 2/3 vote. all sorts of issues like that. we've heard discussions of the members being obligated --
2:28 pm
[inaudible] -- vote for the nominee of the caucus, conference, on the floor. i'm not suggesting that's necessarily a good rule but those are the kinds of ideas being discussed right now. reporter: among the candidate mrs. chaffetz said he'd pull out if mr. ryan got in. is there anybody else viable? mr. dent: i don't want to speak for other members. paul ryan, i know, is thinking very hard about this. he could certainly bring a lot of folks together. the bigger challenge is not who we put in the speaker's chair. the issue is, how do we change the underlying political dynamic that got us in this position in the first place? no matter who we put in that chair, it's going to have to figure out a way to change the political dynamic. that is the much harder question and i think anyone who is thinking about becoming the next speaker understands that instinctively. reporter: it sounds like you're not sure paul ryan could change the political dynamics. mr. dent: i don't know that anybody can right now. paul is highly respected by all members of the conference. i think paul's a very smart guy. he understands this. reporter: [inaudible] reporter:
2:29 pm
how could a new speaker strategize or how to deal with this? it seems you can continue the boehner method which is containing everything. you could throw over the right wing and work with democrats. how do you see the choices ahead for how to manage this caucus? mr. dent: it's pretty simple as far as i'm concerned. on the debt ceiling, on the budget agreement, on the omnibus, a bipartisan coalition. put together, up front, put the bill on the floor. now we did the c.r. we've gone through this so many times. [inaudible] -- the fiscal cliff, hurricane sandy, violence against women act, opening the government, debt ceiling, on and on, homeland security appropriations bill last year, that's always been the form lafment the question is, how much intervening drama do we have to deal with between the start of the process and when we reach the final resolution, which we know will be that bipartisan coalition? i'd rather get to that final step a lot sooner. reporter: how can he get nominated?
2:30 pm
mr. dent: it's a conundrum. the conundrum is this. a new speaker can do just what i suggested. a bipartisan coalition and deal with the -- [inaudible] -- or continue as we've been on the course we've been on and that would make the speaker -- [inaudible] reporter: do you think we'll have a new speaker by the end of the month? mr. dent: i hope so. reporter: what makes you say paul ryan is thinking about it? mr. dent: i know people talked to him about it. you have to ask him. reporter: [inaudible] reporter: did he speak in there? mr. dent: i don't think so. reporter: did anyone stand up and say, look him in the eye or say, hey, paul -- mr. dent: i don't -- i don't -- [inaudible] weeks worth of internal discussions, --
2:31 pm
[inaudible] -- or can that person just emerge -- [inaudible] mr. dent: there are a number of people who are thinking about becoming the next speaker. > everybody clear the hallway! reporter: [inaudible] mr. wilson: we're going to take this at a slow pace. go home during the break and try to figure out what we need to do to get this country moving again. reporter: [inaudible] mr. wilson: i would hope not. hacking words asking for integrity creates so much trouble. i don't think so, to be honest with you. reporter: [inaudible] mr. dent: not yet. reporter: or when? mr. wilson: i do not. reporter: talking about an affair with kevin mccarthy. because of your letter. mr. wilson: that's their decision to interpret it that way. this is something that i think is important to the american
2:32 pm
people. anybody in leadership, male or female, should be a man or woman of integrity. that is nothing personally about anybody. reporter: that's kind of an assumption, when you reference livingston. mr. wilson: i was here at the time and it was total chaos here. i don't want to see that happen again. reporter: were members urging paul ryan to run? mr. wilson: no. there's nothing about the next speaker or anything. it's about taking this in a slow way and see if we can find common ground and that's going to be what we need to work on. the rule, changes the rule and something like that. reporter: what did boehner tell the conference? mr. wilson: he's just going to be there to elect the new speaker. reporter: is that ok with the freedom caucus members? mr. wilson: i would think so. reporter: [inaudible] mr. wilson: no. i think right now we need to -- [inaudible]
2:33 pm
reporter: have you spoken to leader mccarthy since the letter or no? wills [inaudible] host: there are still two candidates in the race for house speaker. jason chaffetz of utah, and daniel webster of florida. the tampa bay times has an op ed written by representative david jolly today on why he supports congressman webster for speaker. some of it reads, dan webster and i share a vision of a house capable of regular order. we huddled recently on the house floor and spoke of a house that finally did the people's work again. a house that gave every member, from the most junior to the most senior, a seat at the table. part of an op ed by congressman jolly. here are speaker candidates webster and chaffetz followed by representative gowdy who says he's not interested in being speaker. reporter: mr. webster, if paul ryan were to run, would you
2:34 pm
endorse him or continue to challenge him? >> i'm not challenging him. i'm challenging the process here. i'm making that point. reporter: you'll run all the way? mr. webster: i'm going to run in this congress and the conference we have. reporter: you will be a candidate on the floor no matter what? mr. webster: yeah. i said i was running in the conference. so there's going to be a date set for an election in the conference. and i'm running. reporter: if you don't get the nomination in the conference, will you step aside? mr. webster: well, i just run for the conference. that's what -- reporter: will you back the conference's event nominee? -- eventual nominee? mr. webster: we'll see what happens. reporter: [inaudible] reporter: we have one now. reporter: you have spoken to mr. ryan about the prospects of rubbing? mr. webster: i have not. i said i was focused on one
2:35 pm
thing and that is winning the conference. reporter: [inaudible] mr. webster: am i the right choigs? reporter: why are you the right choice? mr. webster: like i said before, we have a power-base system where a few people at the top of the pyramid make all the decisions. i want to do what i did in florida. push down that pyramid of power. that's all i want. i'm not running against anybody, i'm not running against a personality or a name. i'm just running for that set of principles that says we're going to have a principle base, member-driven congress. reporter: do you think paul ryan could be the speaker? >> let him go. reporter: did you think it was appropriate to delay the
2:36 pm
election like that? mr. webster: it was probably necessary. reporter: you think it was necessary? mr. webster: i do. reporter: do you think they would have delayed it had you dropped out? mr. webster: no. reporter: how do you think the delay can go on? mr. webster: i think it will be done before the end of the month. -- one of inaudible] the speaker candidates had done something morally repugnant, would you be able to stand on that? mr. webster: i don't know. i don't know what you're talking about. what are you -- you said if one of the candidates -- like i said, i'm not -- i'm talking about candidates for personalities. they have one thing in common. principle base, member-driven conference. period. inaudible]
2:37 pm
mr. chaffetz: and get it right. members are going to go home and visit with their constituents over the next week. i think we'll have additional candidates get into the race. i'm not afraid of competition. i've always thought there should be more people in this race, not less. this is the most important position in the house of representatives. i look forward to that discussion and will actively be campaigning for it. reporter: what do you think of darrell issa as a challenger? mr. chaffetz: like i said, i support all the challengers. i put myself out there. inaudible]
2:38 pm
reporter: are you frustrate they had cut off the election? mr. chaffetz:. no i think the speaker made the right decision. it caught everybody by shock and surprise. under the rules the speaker can postpone an election. reporter: [inaudible] -- interim speaker of some sort. mr. chaffetz: i didn't hear any of that discussion over there. about an interim speaker. reporter: [inaudible] mr. chaffetz: if paul ryan runs, clearly he would be somebody that i would support, i would love it if he did it. reporter: would you drop out? mr. chaffetz: he's been a drum beat in consistency, in saying he's not going to do it. if paul ryan got the nominee, of course i would support him. he's somebody i could be excited about. part of the reason i got in this race is because people like paul ryan weren't stepping up to do it. we need to have some solution. i offered myself as part of that solution. reporter: would you drop out if paul ryan -- mr. chaffetz: i would support the nominee.
2:39 pm
reporter: you'd run against him? mr. chaffetz: no. i would not run against paul ryan. if paul ryan gets in the race, i'm a huge fan of paul ryan, i would support paul ryan, i would hope that he would do it. but he's consistently said he won't. we've got to get somebody who actually wants to do it and will fight for it and make the most of it. maybe his approach changes, but he's certainly, in my mind, the most qualified person to do it. and i'd hope he'd do it. reporter: have you talked to him today about it? mr. chaffetz: no. reporter: does speaker boehner still expect to step down by the end of the month? mr. chaffetz: he wants to get through this process by the end of the month. i have a markup. i'm glad you're all going to come to. it's going to be a great one. reporter: thank you. >> right side, please. reporter: are there plans for a retreat for the conference? you have talked about that? mr. chaffetz: i didn't hear
2:40 pm
that. maybe that's what's what they're going to do but i idn't hear that today. reporter: anything interesting in there? oudgoud mr. gowdy: you wouldn't want to read the note. reporter: what was in the note? mr. gowdy: look. these he's a good friend and i respect him a lot. reporter: do you support -- [inaudible] -- if he were to get in, would you support him? mr. gowdy: 100%. reporter: how's the pressure on you right now to get in? mr. gowdy: the pressure on me is that i'm going to be late for a meeting with aline of scrimmagea cummings and i don't want to be late for a meeting with him. to ter: what's it going
2:41 pm
take to get paul ryan in the running? is it just about his wife and family? just his wife and family? mr. gowdy: when you say just about? that's pretty important. reporter: what's next? mr. gowdy: the speaker's going to set a new election day. reporter: any idea when that might be? what will it take to get to you run? mr. gowdy: the audible voice of god. reporter: do you want the job? mr. gowdy: no. reporter: does anybody? mr. gowdy: we'll find out. i think paul could get everybody. reporter: what about darrell issa? mr. gowdy: can he get darrell issa or --? reporter: could he potentially be a candidate. would people want to support him in the conference? mr. gowdy: support who? reporter: darrell issa. mr. gowdy: you'd have to ask someone else. reporter: is speaker boehner going to stay on then? mr. gowdy: yes. reporter: any idea? mr. gowdy: i don't know when
2:42 pm
he's going to set the new date or it. host: when john boehner exits stage right next month, "politico" writes that he'll leave behind a deeply divided house republican caucus, torn between a shrinking reaganite core, conservative but cognizant of its responsibility to ledge slate, govern and compromise, and a growing tea party wing that wants to burn the house down. in the sharp assessment of representative bill flores of texas who chairs the republican study committee. the story says it wouldn't be the first time that congress faced a deadlock over a leadership election. in 1855, a house of representatives took almost two months to choose a new speaker. read more at politico.com. you can see all of our coverage of the current speaker's race at c-span.org and when the house returns after the columbus week recess, live here on c-span.
2:43 pm
>> every weekend the c-span networks feature programs on politics, nonfiction books and american history. saturday morning at 10:00 eastern on c-span --
2:44 pm
>> get our complete weekend schedule at c-span.org. >> the house today approved
2:45 pm
energy legislation that would lift a 40-year-old ban on oil exports. the "washington times" writes that the ban has become a major priority for the g.o.p., as a job creator. in the oil and gas sector, being pummeled by low oil prices. democrats, however, opposed the measure, fearing removal of the ban will drive up energy prices and harm the economy. here's some of the debate before the vote. s recognized fo one minute. mr. harper: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of h.r. 702, more importantly i rise today in support of american jobs. the u.s. daily production of oil has increased dramatically in the past 14 years. that number is projected to continue to increase due to advances in technology, but companies need a new market. at this point the ban is not protecting the economy. instead, the economy is being restricted and americans are being denied jobs. my district and state rely on good-paying oil industry jobs.
2:46 pm
at a time when our economy can't afford to see unemployment numbers rise, oil companies are being forced to cut back their work force. lifting the ban on crude oil exports will mean new jobs for mississippians that will allow them to support theirs families. i urge my colleagues -- their families. i urge my colleagues to vote and support h.r. 6702 and for american jobs. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi yield back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: mr. speaker, i think we go to the minority. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey nnl is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to h.r. 702, a poorly crafted bill that needlessly and recklessly sweeps away 40 years of critical energy protections for national security, our economy, consumers, and the environment. h.r. 702 is a blunt object that doesn't just undermine current protective authorities related
2:47 pm
to crude oil, it also prohibits any federal official from taking any action at any time if that action either restricts or enforces a restriction on the export of oil. the term restriction is undefined and potentially dangerous in scope. the bill will also override any other law that would impose any restriction by any federal official on exports. that means that the bill does nothing to preserve any environment or safety statutes or regulations an doesn't even preserve the defense production act, one of the most important tools any president has to ensure our national energy security in the face of a threat. let's be clear, mr. chairman, the president has stated he will veto this bill. further, any legislation of this nature is completely unnecessary since the president already has the authority to ease or even remove restrictions on crude oil exports and the obama administration has taken major steps to exercise that authority by approving crude oil swaps with mexico and
2:48 pm
applications to the export of. the bottom line, mr. chairman, is it is imperative for congress to consider a host of factors before we lift the current restrictions and certainly if we are to completely dismantle our nation's ability to restrict oil exports as proposed by h.r. 702. first, mr. chairman, there are consumer impacts, especially related to the price of crude oil and gasoline. a recent study found that changes to u.s. oil export policy will have little to no impact on the future price of oil. what we do know is that changes in our crude oil policy will lead to a significant payday for oil producers. with increases in annual profits aproaching $30 billion by 2025. next, there are the impacts on our refinery capacity and associated jobs. well paying middle class jobs that have grown over the past few years due to increased production. unrestricted exports of crude oil puts those jobs in jeopardy and could mean exporting those
2:49 pm
jobs and losing out on critical investments in future refining capacity. and finally, mr. chairman, there are, of course, the environmental and climate impacts of lifting the export ban. energy policy is fundamentally linked to environmental policy. each is a facet of the other. increasing crude oil exports means increasing domestic production and its impacts on climate change, public health, worker safety, property owners, and protection of our drinking water supplies. as i said before, this legislation eagerly embraces short-term profits and benefits without understanding or even considering the costs of such a major action. we simply can't afford to make that mistake. we should ensure we fully understand and consider the enduring consequences of our action and choose the cleanest path st sustainable forward. i don't believe, mr. chairman, that the potential impacts of h.r. 702 on national security, on the economy, on consumers and on the environment can be considered acceptable. so, mr. chairman, increased
2:50 pm
crude exports certainly help oil companies. it's a bonanza for the oil companies, but without any guaranteed benefits for consumers. i urge my colleagues to join me and the president in saying no to this legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: i have a parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barton: my understanding in general debate, the proponents have 30 minutes and then the opponents have 30 minutes. is that correct? the chair: on this bill, yes. mr. barton: i would scuck unanimous consent, mr. speaker, that mr. cuellar of texas, the original democrat sponsor, have six minutes of proponents time to control as he sees fit. the chair: the chair cannot entertain a unanimous request to change the times of debate.
2:51 pm
mr. barton: additional parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. mr. barton: could the chair educate the illiterate member from texas on how i could give mr. cuellar time he may control on his side? if i can't yield it nanimously, how can i do that? the chair: the gentleman from texas may yield time from his own time to engage in debate. the gentleman from texas can yield to other members on other sides. mr. barton: continue the parliamentary inquiry, if i do that can he reserve part of that time or does he have to se it all in one slot? the chair: the other gentleman from texas would not control the time. mr. barton: he could not reserve any of it? the chair: correct. mr. barton: thank you. with that, mr. speaker, i want to yield one minute to the
2:52 pm
gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: i thank the chairman. i thank my colleague for the time to speak on this bill. which i wholeheartedly support because ending this oil export ban will not only boost our economy, it would also improve our foreign policy. i also rise with hesitation to a proposed amendment that would remove a provision of this bill boosting payments to the 60 ships of our maritime security fleet. these ships are essential in transporting cargo to the men and women of our armed forces who are serving overseas in harm's way. as evidence of this, 90% of all cargo moved to iraq and afghanistan have been transported on these privately owned ships. as of right now, mr. speaker, the stipend provided by the government is too low to make this program viable for those who have stepped up to defend our nation against foreign threats. without this increase, it is
2:53 pm
likely that participants will drop out of the program. this obviously is a national security threat. it is estimated that for the government to replicate this program it would cost more than $50 billion in taxpayer money. this program saves money while enhancing our security and i encourage my colleagues to avoid supporting this amendment but voting yes to lift this outdated oil export ban. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time of the the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. doyle: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this bill. i have been here in congress for 21 years, and during that time we always hear talk about we want to be energy independent in the united states. p my colleagues on both sides of the aisle -- my colleagues on both sides of the aisle always talk about the dream of energy independence where we don't have to depend on any other country for our oil. it would change policy in the middle east.
2:54 pm
and it would dramatically improve our national security. well, the bad news is, mr. speaker, we are not energy independent. we use 17 million barrels of oil a day. but we only produce nine million. which means we are still importing nearly half of all the oil we use. now, here's the good news, mr. speaker. horizontal drilling and all this oil we are finding in the shale formations gives us a chance to truly be energy independent. we could produce an additional nine million barrels a day, and we wouldn't have to depend on any other country in the world for our oil. all we have to do is produce what we have in our own country and make sure that we have refinery capacity to take care of this crude and we are energy independent. so the question is, mr. speaker, why aren't we investing in our own domestic refringery capacity to keep
2:55 pm
high-paying jobs here in the united states in the refinery industry, in the maritime trades, and in manufacturing like steel making. why aren't we doing that for america while enhancing america's security? we had the commander, former commander of the u.s.s. cole testify before our committee. he highlighted the significant national security risks associated with greater oil imports. he said too many times in recent history the u.s. has made oil deals with hostile or unfriendly governments that actually threaten our foreign policy and our national security objective. lifting the export ban will undermine u.s. power projection capabilities by undermining the competitiveness of our u.s. refineries. do we really want to undermine the u.s. military? and then we hear the story that somehow lifting this ban can going to help our european allies. because it will reduce their dependence on russian oil. that's a myth, too, as
2:56 pm
commander lipert testified before our committee, the primary recipient of this u.s. exported oil is going to be asia, specifically china. so we want to export u.s. oil to china and still have to import oil from countries that aren't necessarily friendly to us. why would we do that? mr. speaker, house bill 702 is deeply flawed because it doesn't allow for any future oversight of oil exports under any circumstances. even if there is an oil spike or shortage, there is no safety valve to ensure that we have enough of this critical resource for our armed forces, our industries, and our constituents. in conclusion, mr. speaker, this bill undermines our national security and we are still importing an incredible amount of oil. this just defies common sense and we should reject it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. .
2:57 pm
mr. barton: i yield to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. walters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. walters: i rise -- in 975, president ford signed the bill into law. much has changed since that time. today we need an energy policy that aligns with our current economic and political climate. the united states is the largest petroleum and natural gas producer in the world. our self-imposed export ban doesn't make since and does nothing but hinder economic growth. if the ban is lifted this year, over 57,000 new supply chain jobs will be created in my home state of california by 2018, and nationwide nearly 450,000 new jobs would be created. having the option to put u.s.
2:58 pm
crude oil on the world market would benefit americans. lifting the ban would create jobs, strengthen the u.s. economy and help reduce our trade deficit. it would also provide the international marketplace with more options in turn limiting the ability of energy commodities to be used as political weapons. it is important to note that this bill doesn't require the u.s. to export crude oil. it provides options for those that need it the most. i ask my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, we already used some time so i'd like to reserve and have the republicans have another speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. barton: at the request of congressman cuellar, who is my original democratic sponsor, i yield one minute to mr. scott f georgia.
2:59 pm
mr. hinojosa of texas. i see mr. hinojosa on the floor. i'd like to yield to mr. scott r mr. hinojosa for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. hinojosa: i rise today in support as a co-sponsor of h.r. 702 which lifts the ban on crude oil exports. modern advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have allowed the united states access to large deposits of crude oil and natural gas. last year our country produced over 150 million barrels of crude oil and that number is steadily increasing. the crude oil in our deposits is lighter and sweeter than the traditional heavy crude oil our refineries process. the export ban hinders our
3:00 pm
access to international markets that need the sweeter type of crude and that have the refinement infrastructure for it. i am convinced that lifting the outdated crude oil export ban will create jobs and economic opportunities for our communities as we strive for greater energy independence. in the great state of texas, lifting the export ban is estimated to increase the annual g.d.p. by over $7.1 billion and create over

17 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on