tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN September 12, 2019 9:00am-2:14pm EDT
another addition comes your way at 7:00. forget on c-span, if you're onerested on the efforts impeachment, you can now monitor that. we now take you to the house of representatives. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019]
in order. the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain. reverend kyle wright ii, holy cross lutheran church and school, collinsville, illinois. the chaplain: let us pray. in the name of the father, son, and holy ghost, amen. i thank and praise you heavenly father for moving each and every one of these men and women to serve this country which you sustain in your mercy. watch over them this day that your will be done in their discussions, decisions, and most of all their actions. you are the god of all power and might who out of love for your creation established order from chaos, peace from discord, and life from death. for the sake of christ jesus our lord, forgive us of our pride, our disobedience, and poor stewardship of what you have placed into our care. according to your mercy, open the eyes and hearts of your
people so they may know the depth of your love found only in christ jesus. dear lord, i commend to your care our congress, our government, and our nation as you judge and keep us according to your just mercy. n jesus christ our lord, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his pproval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be a -- led by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. stauber. mr. stauber: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection,
the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, is recognized for one minute. mr. shimkus: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise to thank and welcome pastor wright. pastor wright serves as pastor of my home congregation, holy cross lutheran church and school in collinsville, illinois. he received his undergraduate degree from concordia university in austin, texas, and masters divinity from the seminary in fort wayne, indiana. he's currently pursuing a master of sacred theology in concordia seminaryry. he has served as pastor since 2006. during that time he's also served as a resource hospital chaplain, hospice chaplain, and multiple boards. his wife is the help, support, and love of his wife. they have four beautiful daughters, katie is 12. gwen, 10. lili, 10. and maggie also 10. yes, you heard it right,
triplets. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker: thank you, mr. shame cuss. the chair will entertain up to five further requests for one-minutes on each side of the aisle. -- hat purpose does the for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i rise in recognition of a tragic anniversary that the residents of the merry mack valley will never forget. tomorrow marks one year since the damage of over 130 homes and businesses burning several to the ground. at least 20 people were sent to the hospital. a lawrence police officer lost his home while aiding his community. shakira was injured and a young man lost his life. an ntsb investigation revealed
the series of mail yours by a gas company as it replaced pipelines in the area. oversights allowed the full flow of high pressure gas to enter a low pressure distribution system. in april, i introduced the rendon pipeline safety act to prehaven't this type of disaster from ever happening again. we owe it to the sotos, figueroas, and rendons and others who suffered on september 15 to pass pipeline safety this year. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent 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. stauber: mr. speaker, i rise today to express my gratitude for the st. louis county volunteer rescue squad located in northern, minnesota, and their quick response to an emergency that took place in my district a little over a month ago. at the end of july, a group of girl scouts traveling to
northern minnesota to experience the beauty and mavs of the boundary waters canoe area. their trip unexpectedly hit a rough patch when severe thunderstorms rolled in and lightning struck close to their campsite. a few of the girls reported feeling something from the ground, potentially a ground current, and needed precautionary medical attention. the boundary catters canoe area is very remote making any rescue attempt more complex and rigorous. nevertheless, the volunteer st. louis county rescue squad members immediately sprang into action, navigating five portages by motor boat and then canoe escorting the girls back to safety. mr. speaker, i am thankful that we have such a capable and well trained group of individuals of our to the safety neighbors and visitors. due to their hard work lives have been saved. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the
balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the body for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> this past weekend we lost my dear friend, marko bristol, an eninspiring civil rights activist from chicago. she had a diving accident when she was young that left her paralyzed from the chest down. mr. garcia: she never aloud her disability to define her. instead, her disability became her super power. she dedicated her life to changing laws and bringing attention to the disparities faced by people with disabilities in the most basic services. she was instrumental in bringing wheelchair ramps to chicago public buses. she didn't do this by just writing letters or holding meetings. she went as far as chaining herself to a bus to force the
chicago transit authority to make mass transit more accessible. she worked with the broader civil rights community to pass key legislation like the americans with disabilities act. the organization she founded living in metropolitan chicago will carry on with her legacy. i send heartfelt thoughts to her son and daughter, rest in power. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the simpson county historical society and its long reaching influence on simpson county and the surrounding communities. since its founding in 1959, simpson county historical society has been a valuable asset to the first district of kentucky. through the collection and preservation of historical property and ginological
records, the society has been able to maintain an extensive archive for the benefit of future generations. i applaud the work of the society that it has done over the last 60 years and i'm pleased to say that as of thursday, september 12, they will have expanded to a newer, larger facility, enabling them to increase the research capabilities and broaden their effect on local education and cultural development. i join with the residents of simpson county and the local community as well as those who have been fitted from the work of the simpson county historical society in honoring their incredible dedication to the preservation and promotion of history. i wish the historical society the best as they begin a new phase of their own history and express my gratitude for their service to the first district of kentucky. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom oregon seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore:
without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. we have a crisis in housing, and homelessness, growing wealth inequality, and it's all not an accident. it's the result of deliberate discrimination and policy failure. the federal government for years intervened in housing for white veterans, for middle class homeowners, for developers and property owners, but shut out poor and people especially -- especially people of color, african-americans, most notably. trump is making it worse. tonight 550,000 people will go to sleep homeless. we have a gap of $7 million affordable rental units. and income inequality grows. we need a reset. last week i released this report locked out, reversing federal housing failures and unlocking opportunities, which details solutions for our most vexing housing and policy challenges. it's available on
blumenauer.gov website. we must be bold, transformative, and ambitious in solving these challenges. we can't afford another generation of small scale thinking and large scale failure. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent 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. thomson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the jefferson county courthouse in pennsylvania's 15th congressional district. since its opening in 1869, the jefferson county courthouse has undergone serious renovations and changes, but its impact on the community remains steadfast. the county commissioner said, quote, you really can't be a resident of jefferson county and not have the courthouse affect your daily lives, end quote. today the jefferson county community will come together to celebrate this milestone on the
courthouse grounds. the programming will include tours of the courthouse, performance by the punxsutawney area high school marching band, re-enactment of the trial of abolitionist elijah heath, and dedication of a world war ii monument. the evening will conclude with the lighting of the bell tower and a special rig designed by students at the jefferson county dubois area vocational technical school. the commissioner said it best when he said, quote, it's not our building, it's everybody's building that lives in jefferson county, end quote. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent 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. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor my long-time friend and monroe county board of elections commissioner tomorrow ferassi as he begins his retirement. for more than two decades tom
has served our community with distinctions at the board of elections working tirelessly to expand access to voters, safeguard our elections, and uphold the democratic process. he's been a passionate and political community activist working diligently to advance the ideals of the democratic party not just through his work at the board but extensive volunteer an community advocacy on behalf of lgbtq individuals. mr. morelle: it's been a true privilege to work alongside tom and our community is grateful for his many years of service. i wish him nothing but well deserved rest, relaxation, and wes wishes in retirement. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent 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 recognize our newest combatant command u.s. space command which was stood up monday in colorado springs. president trump's decision to stand up space com could not be
more timely. in recent years russia and china have reorganized their militaries and pursued capabilities to threaten our space assets. fortunately our nation has no shortage of innovative and brilliant men and women in uniform. our newest combatant command will harness the dine know of these space war fighters. congress will give them the authorities and funding they need to triumph in this newest contest of arms. mr. lamborn: with the infrastructure and industrial base and personnel already located at peterson and shrever air force bases in colorado springs, space com can seamlessly transition into a fully functioning combatant command immediately. this is a great and exciting milestone for our nation. mr. speaker, i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? > i ask unanimous consent that
all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to extraneous material on h.r. 1146. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker pro tempore: resolution 548se and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of for consideration of h.r. 1146. appoints the gentleman from illinois, mr. kasten, to preside over the committee of the whole. the hair: the house is in committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the 1146 whichion of h.r. the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend 115-97, commonly nown as the tax cuts and jobs
arctic repeal the national wildlife refuge oil and gas program, for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, he bill is considered as read the first time. amendments specified in section 2 of house resolution 548, shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on resources. the gentleman from california, mr. huffman, and the gentleman alaska, mr. young, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. huffman. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i consume. today -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. huffman: the house of representatives will rollback provision of the republican tax law that was rammed through he last congress on a party line vote. in addition to the tax breaks to illionaires, billionaires, and multinational corporations, there was a provision that oil and gas development in the arctic national wildlife refuge. take up bipartisan
legislation to repeal this drilling mandate, protecting not just the arctic refuge, but the wildlife and the indigenous who depend on this sacred, natural landscape. 1146 earlier .r. this year with my republican colleague, brian fitzpatrick, believe, as do 182 other co-sponsors of this bill, that are are some places that simply too important, too sacred to be spoiled by oil and gas development. his is the same basic proposition that we were presented with yesterday when bipartisan ssed legislation to protect our coasts from offshore drilling, of use the north coast california is too special to have its fisheries and coastal conomy put at risk for the profit of big oil because places like the low country of south too special to be spoiled by oil spills. and today, we're here to show
the arctic national wildlife refuge, the largest wildlife refuge in the united too special.so than fuge is home to more 200 different wildlife species pine,at includes the pork caribou herd. he refuge is a special place where veterans, recovering from begin.find themselves we heard -- themselves again. we heard these stories during deliberations on this bill, a hearing earlier this year, and i thank all of those spoken ified and have out to help us bring this bill today.floor the question before us is, will the federal government protect this special place and the depend on it, t or will our federal government e responsible for its destruction by auctioning it off to big oil? during this debate, my side of s on the other the aisle are going to ask us and ask the american people to
this administration to do the right thing. they're going to say that can be done responsibly. they'll ask us to trust a interior, who the .a.o. has determined violated -- during the trump shutdown, a secretary that met with his former clients gas e u.s. oil and association, as they were pushing for more drilling in american public lands, and a continues to shill for his former lobbying clients at every turn. they'll ask us to trust this administration where the leading interior department official for drilling in the arctic refuge just left public start a new ago to job at an oil and gas company ith interests, believe it or not, in arctic isle development oil and gas development in
alaska. stuff up.make this a president, armed with a sharpie, overrules scientists the jobs of scientists when they speak out. we need to reject this agenda of protect america's arctic from oil and gas drilling. 1146 and to pass h.r. repeal the trump administration mandate. drilling mr. speaker, i urge adoption, and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: mr. chairman, i ield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. young: i listen to the resentation of the author of this bill. i have been in this house 48 years. arguing about this years.or 40 of those we passed it out of the house 14 it was nd by the way, established by a democrat president, a democrat house to the 1002 areas to be
explored if congress said so. done.at's what we've now, we have a sponsor from california that doesn't know eans about this business, talking about big oil and about trump. this has been a policy of this there to allow drilling if the congress spoke. and we did so. yes. the tax bill, but 13 times before that this house passed the legislation to a 1002 explored. just keep in mind, we're talking 19 million-acre left, the 1002 -- f anybody can see the little tiny red dot, 2,000 acres. less than the size of dulles than the size of the capitol grounds. and, yet, we're trying to say, development. we're trying to say that's not right. this is the last pristine area. again, it's not the last pristine area. we had 17 years of --
approximately, 30 years in of rain,ay, same types same types of species, same of caribou even after we started drilling. this bill is a sham. listened in great interest. it's also a sham to this congress. spoke.ngress it's a sham to this nation. time away from what nation.e done in this we spent two years in this house nothing. unfortunately, we also heard bill, and the re gentleman doesn't listen to the people. important. the people that live there want the drilling. the people, at least 150 miles don't want the drilling, but that's who they're listening to. again, my colleagues, this bill step forward for this nation. it's not about big oil. it is about the state of alaska.
constituents. not california. they got enough problems of their own. just read the papers. so i'm suggesting, respectfully, this bill should not go anywhere. it pay pass today because there are a lot of people on that side that don't believe in oil. that.rstand it's wrong to undo what congress has done, and now i will respectfully, it's dead. you're wasting our time. it will not go anywhere. won't get real excited and go over there -- never mind. i suggest, respectfully, i will this bill long, long time before this gentleman is ever in this house again. balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: well, i thank the restraint.or his one of the arguments my friend invariably makes when we talk about this issue is that the proposed drilling area tiny little piece of a great big refuge in a great big
it's typically characterized as just a little 2,000-acre postage stamp. e need to dispel this very inaccurate and disingenuous character. acres of hard footprint, but it's not 2,000 acres of development all in one place. is spread out across the coastal plain, which is the america's art of largest wildlife refuge. if you want to see what this ootprint really looks like, it's not so tiny, folks, when you look at the hundreds of and the gravel mining and the gravel pads and other rigs and infrastructure that have to go a lot differently than what has been characterized. this picture depicts what the this little t of postage stamp development in the arctic refuge looks like, and i by any fair measure, it ould absolutely disspoil the
beating heart of america's largest wildlife refuge. like to yield two minutes to my friend from oregon, a great champion of our of the arctic d refuge, mr. blumenauer. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate courtesy, an's allowing me to vote -- to speak on this. was on the ways and means committee that passed the cuts.que republican tax this provision was never debated n a bill that never had a hearing, wedged in. out.ath doesn't work it portends we are going to have hundreds of millions or a not on or more -- it's going to happen. we are talking about a elatively small amount of money, which i am convinced, despite my good friend from this is assertion, going to move forward. the american public opposes it. do. the wrong thing to we need to moving in the other irection in terms of keeping
the oil up there in the ground for climate. the environment there. i had a chance to visit that ith governor inslee and other colleagues. really impressed with the nature heard., saw that caribou this is a treasure. it's much more fragile than one think, and we are bound nd determined to work to support the environmental values, the desire of the people, our challenges or climate, and to unwind this egregious provision in the epublican tax bill, which i marked my word, will in fact be adjusted, if not in this congress, in subsequent. friend's forth right approach here. i -- forthright approach here. appreciate the fact we are focusing the american public on the out rageous provision that
fighting -- outrageous provision that we're dismissing this egregious provision in the tax scam. thank you, and i yield back. mr. huffman: i reserve the balance of my time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. r. young: at this time i'd yield to westerman from arkansas, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. westerman: i thank the gentleman from alaska for yielding. mr. speaker, my colleagues on aisle er side of the claim they are concerned about the environment, but that does i am not concerned about the environment or that my side of the this aisle are not concerned about the environment. of our earliest and most conservationist, ifford pinchot, stated when conflicting interests must be resolved that we should strive o do the greatest good for the
reatest number for the long run. pinchot also wrote that, conservation is the application common n sense to the problems for the common good. today aker, this bill lacks common sense. slope of to the north alaska. we can develop clean, safe, energy in the world and and rve our public lands the environment. i would argue it's because of our technology and innovation clean fuels like natural gas has allowed the nited states to decrease our global greenhouse gas emissions, more than any other country in the world. at this bill today and we look at the history of 1980, a appened, in democratic-held congress passed lands ska national conservation act, and president carter signed it into law. act set aside more than 1.5
million acres for responsible anwr.d gas development in itself, nearly 20 million acres in total. such a large commitment, less than a decade after the arab and embargo, made logical sense time. it was 2018 when congress approved a limited exploration acres in anwr.0 than.001 itutes less and.01. in the case of re-lidge rance from russia and -- mr. young: i yield the gentleman one more minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. . mr. westerman: members of this house have a choice. the decision, mr. speaker, is one that demands commonsense. it is in the common interest to
protect domestic energy, realistically 2,000 acres is a small price to pay for our security. i urge my colleagues to vote or the greatest good, greatest number, and vote for the long run. i urge my colleagues to vote for common sense and vote no on h.r. 1146. yield back. the chair: does the gentleman from alaska reserve? mr. young: i still reserve. the chair: the gentleman from alaska from california is recognized. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new mexico, the chair of the public land subcommittee of the natural resources committee, representative haaland. ms. haaland: thank you. mr. chairman as a 35th generation american, i rise in support of h.r. 1146. the arctic refuge was setaside to protect its unique wildlife, willed ners, and resources.
it sustains the tribe and has for centuries and it's why they call it the sacred place where life begins. oil and gas drilling puts at risk the porcupine caribou herd which has sustained tribe for centuries and centrist. it also threatens wolves, polar bears, and migratory birds that live there. and will release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere exacerbating the effects of global warming which have affected alaska far more than any state in this country. republicans slipped this drilling provision into their tax cut bill last congress, and i might add that no tribes had an opportunity to voice their opinions on any of that. and now this administration is rushing ahead without adequate environmental review or tribal consultation. americans want a smart approach to sustainable energy development not a careless rush off to sell one of our most
iconic and sacred places for shortsighted destructive fuel production. i urge my colleagues to stand with the q -- guichin and speak up for the animals that live had the refuge and support this legislation. i yield back to my colleague. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: at this time i'd like to yield the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. hern, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. heroin: i thank my colleague from alaska for -- mr. hern:i thank my colleague from alaska for yielding. utelingizing our domestic resource is essential to a strong economy. energy dominance of a world stage is our end goal. we'll never get there if we continue to cut off access to our own resources. the truth is oil and gas production in anwr benefits our country as a whole, but also a key industry for the people of alaska. the community sees the energy sector as a source of
employment, revenue, and reliable energy. the people, including the local tribe of alaska natives, are incredibly supportive of the continuation of oil and gas production in their community. these people are never consulted by my colleagues at any point in the development of this bill. neither was our colleague, don young, who is representing the needs of the people of alaska for more than 40 years, who has more experience than everyone who wrote this bill combined. don young, the dean of the house, longest serving member in congress, who should have been the first person consulted about this legislation, was never sought out. instead they consulted a tribe 350 miles away who has nothing do with oil and gas in anwr. to put this in perspective, i live in tulsa, oklahoma. omaha, nebraska is about 380 miles away. can anybody tell me what my opinion would matter in omaha, nebraska? i don't spend time there. i don't know what the people want there. the only assumption we can make as to why a tribe over 350 miles away was consulted
instead of the local community is that my colleagues knew they wouldn't find support. this should be an easy decision. there is no reason to vote yes on this bill. i urge my colleagues to think about the future of our country and vote no today on h.r. 1146. i yield back. mr. young: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. i know the gentleman does not mean to disrespect or trivialize the interests of an indigenous tribe that for hundreds and hundreds of years has depended on the porcupine caribou herd where it's calving grounds and heart of the migratory road is right in the refuge we are talking about. i know the gentleman doesn't mean to disrespect them by suggesting their voices don't matter, but we believe that the gwich' in voice does matter. you are going to hear them stand up for their interest consistently on this issue. with that i'd like to recognize
the gentleman from southern california, congressman levin, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from southern california is recognized. mr. levin: i rise today in support of h.r. 1146, the arctic cultural and coastal plain protection act. after almost 40 years of trow pro-text, the trump administration anti-fossil fuel lobbyists who have taken up residence at the department of interior opened up the arctic national wildlife refuge to oil and gas development. the timing of this decision could not be more irresponsible. the last thing we should be doing is expanding fossil fuel development in the arctic where temperatures are rising twice as fast as the rest of the united states. but we know that this administration isn't concerned about protecting our environment or addressing the climate crisis. it is not surprising they are willing to sacrifice the diverse habitats in an attempt to help their big oil friends turn an even bigger profit. the american people disagree. the vast majority of americans oppose drilling in this ike
onic landscape and i'm proud to stand with them. we should be reducing our edependence on fossil fuels, embracing renewable energy, and leading the world in combating climate change not going backwards. i strongly sport the arctic cultural and coastal plain protection act, i urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: at this time i yield to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. lamborn: mr. chairman, environmentally responsible development of anwr will increase america's energy security and independence, create jobs, and provide affordable, reliable energy for consumers, while providing much needed revenue to both the state of alaska anti-federal government. and while congressional authorization is required by law for any leasing in anwr, i along with my republican colleagues on the natural resources committee believe that alaska natives should be able to exercise their right to
develop minerals on their lands if they so choose. as the gentleman from alaska has pointed out, native alaskans who actually live within anwr fully support responsible development of their local energy resources. who do we listen to? the people who actually live there or extreme environmentalists, activists here in washington? the oil and gas sector has historically served as a significant source of employment, revenue, and reliable energy for alaska and alaska natives and supports over 110,000 direct and indirect jobs. i encourage my colleagues to oppose this legislation which fortunately will never become law. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: listen to the people who actually live there. mr. speaker, i wish we had seen that same concern yesterday when we had a chance to vote on banning offshore drilling in places where governors and mayors and overwhelming majorities of actual residents
don't want to see their pristine coastlines and coastal economies despoiled by oil and gas development. i'm afraid my friends sometimes have a selective sense of hearing, but the one consistent voice that always seems to be heard is that of big oil. with that i'd like to yield two minutes to my friend from southern california, the chair of the energy it -- and mineral resources subcommittee, the gentleman, mr. lowenthal. mr. lowenthal: thank you. i want to thank representative huffman for his leadership on this very, very important bill. i'd like to briefly discuss one idea, and that's the idea that you hear around that if we are going to protect anwr, that somehow this is going to hurt our ability to become energy independent. we cannot be energy independent unless we open up anwr.
right now we have to really worry because we are going to become, by not opening up anwr, more beholden to the russians, to saudi arabia. this is all going to be whether we open anwr or not. this is absolutely nonsense. republicans and this administration no longer care about energy independence. let's be clear. they do not care about energy independence. and they haven't for years. ever since they voted to lift the oil export ban. for so many years we did not -- we said, we care about energy independence. we are not going to export our oil and gas. if energy was ind-- independence was the goal, we wouldn't be letting companies send american produced oil all over the world, particularly when we are still importing from other countries. and yet that is exactly what is
happening today. we export over three million barrels a day, yet at the same time we are importing seven million barrels a day. if oil development what we are hearing today is really about making america energy independent, instead of exporting those three million barrels, we keep them here at home. so if republicans want to put the export ban back in place, then we should have a real discussion. and i'd love to have that discussion. but they know that their friends in the oil and gas industrial would never let them have that discussion. mr. huffman: i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. lowenthal: this is all about profits. it's not about energy independence. with that i yield my time. thank you.
the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: mr. chairman, at this time i'm happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. speaker. i stand in opposition to this legislation. as it hamstrings the u.s. energy production and goes against the will of the people. tax reform not only delivered on the tax cuts for the country and propelled our record breaking economy, but it paved the way to further energy dominance by authorizing the development of the arctic national wildlife refuge, specifically there is an area there the n.p.r., it has reserves. designated in 1980 by a democrat congress to be opened up for gas and oil lease sales. look, before tax reform the opening of anwr, 92% of the 19.5 million couldn't even -- acres could not even be legally touched. this area was setaside by the 1980 congress and limited to 2,000 federal acres.
that's just.0001% of anwr. i heard an analogy the other day, it's like the size after football on a football field. it's a very, very small spot. i heard another analogy, the size of a postage stamp on a wall. this would setaside for energy production. it has the resources and it's time for us to develop those resources because the failure to develop the resources we have in this country to meet the energy needs of our nation means that we continue to be dependent on other nations. we think about the middle east, when we think about that. but as i told a story yesterday, the new england states get natural gas from russia. and the l and g tanker showed in - lng tanker showed up the harbor. that means they are relying on russia. when we have an abundance of natural gas in this contry, oil
in this country, both offshore and on shore, these are american resource that is should be developed. very minimal impact on the arctic national wildlife refuge. it's time for america to develop the resource that is god gave us when he blessed this great nation. develop these resources in the arctic national wildlife refuge. it's the law of the land. time to develop. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: we have addressed is postage stamp cue nard -- cuneard, we often hear, this is the postage stamp, it is spread out. it's the world's biggest postage stamp if it is, and it would certainly despoil the beating heart of america's largest wildlife refuge. let me just briefly address this other cunard, the idea that congress setaside the 102 area of the refuge for oil and gas development. if you read the law, it would setaside for a study by the
department of interior that would determine if it makes sense to open up the beating heart of america's largest wildlife refuge to oil and gas development and here's and inconvenient fact, the department of interior found that this is a uniquely vital natural resource that could be dramatically harmed. that's why for over 40 years congress has declined to take the step that that law envisioned of opening it up to oil and gas development. that is until the last congress when it was slipped in on a party-line vote against the wishes, frankly, of even many of my friends across the aisle. just.00.01 the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for a minute and a half. in support : i rise 1146. fter nearly four decades of
protection earned by virtue of its diverse wildlife habitats wonders, the trump administration wants to sell off the heartbeat of the arctic the highest bidders. buried in a small print of a tax the president removed critical habitat protections with the stroke of a pen, 250 wildlife han species, like the polar bear, disaster atotential the hands of the oil industry. this action is not only a omplete failure of the government's stewardship of these natural habitat but completely unnecessary considering the united states is already the world's largest producer of petroleum. ecosystemen a fragile that's already under terrible threat from climate change? the plan -- we o it to 2/3 of american people who are opposed to rilling in this iconic landscape to pass this protection act. back.you and i yield
mr. huffman: i reserve, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from reserves. the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: as painful as it is to listen to nonsense, i'm glad hear logical people to speak on this side. i yield one minute to the illinois, mr. shimkus. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. thank you.: it's great to be down here with my friends, both -- on both aisle.f the as many of you know, i announced for re-election, chairman young did in the last congress. i have been to the arctic national wildlife refuge. debunk the view. alaska is bigger than the whole states.tal united the arctic national wildlife refuge is a small area where no at.s i've -- i hope you get there. plain. flat coastal this would be like putting a of ling rig that's the size
a football field on the state of south carolina. ou can't debunk those arguments. my father-in-law worked on the pipeline. micro wavemunication guy -- microwave guy. there are thousands of jobs. is an insidious part of this plan, we know the pipeline flow. have oil in it to we know that we need to continue o have exploration up there so that there's enough oil to keep that pipeline operating. environmental he level organizations want to shutdown the pipeline. sure it doesn't get shutdown. i yield back. mr. young: thank you. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. chairman. i recognize the chair of the house natural resources committee, the gentleman from grijalva, for as much time as he may consume. mr. grijalva: thank you. thank you very much. thank the distinguished chairman of our water, oceans, and wildlife ubcommittee for the time and
also for the long-standing leadership on this issue and 182 thank you to the members of congress who support h.r. 1146. r. chairman, i rise today to strongly support this egislation, 1146, a bill to protect the arctic national wildlife refuge from the irreversible impacts of oil and drilling. this bill would undo a particular terrible provision slipped in the 2017 republican tax bill with no this chamber, no amendments in this chamber, and no votes in this chamber. republican party was not content with merely giving trillions of dollars of tax cuts wealthiest companies and individuals in this country. tax cuts that have driven us without any ebt positives that the bill's sponsors promised. they were time, handing out trillions of dollars to their friends and donors, arctic refuge he for their oil and gas buddies. would be donethis
right, as if destroying a pristine wilderness and the survival of an entire tribe's way of life can never be done right. then, the trump administration took over. since then, we had a rushed so they canl review try to get the lease sales done even though two years quicker than the schedule laid out in the tax bill. seen evidence of the concerns of career scientists overridden.d or we've seen the assistant secretary in charge of making lease sale happen jump ship. after a long three-day cooling started an oil company that has lease rights right next to the refuge. should never uge have been opened, and even those who want to see it developed idea this il at the is now in the hands of donald trump and his buddies. arctic rt to open the refuge has nothing to do with national security, has nothing or has th gas prices
nothing to do with energy independence. to do with greed, plain and simple. the administration simply can't stand the idea that there are places that oil and gas industry shouldn't be allowed to destroy. can't believe there are ome places that deserve to be protected. we don't agree. don't agree. at some point we have to say, stop, you have enough. oil the number one producer -- we're the number one in producer -- oil and gas the world and production is going up. the administration is repealing right, and left and reduce land and wildlife on over 150 million acres of public land. the oil and gas industry has enough. arctic uldn't get the refuge as well. i urge my colleagues to vote for legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time.
mr. huffman: i reserve, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from alaska. at young: mr. chairman, this time i yield to the minnesota, mr. stauber, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. chairmaner: thank you, young, for yielding today to me. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this democratic bill, h.r. 1146, a armful attempt to undermine responsible energy development. throughout the history of our country, we have observed a politicians in washington and the east and west coast, legislating based on what they think is best for the folks in the rest of the country. to debate stened today, we can clearly see that his washingtonian habit is alive and well. for my good friends on the other side of this issue, they think better than the alaska natives living within anwr. they think they know better than benefit from the job growth. they think they know better than our unions. they think they know better than
to the le closest project. i urge my colleagues to take a tep back and look at the unsettling trend that is occurring throughout this country of outsiders with the with us grip on the -- tenuous grip on the truth, those impacted by these local projects. for instance, in my home state of minnesota, the same thing is with the replacement of line 3. people from the twin cities who unimpacted by this project are launching efforts right here n this chamber to stop the replacement and stop the job growth and economic development that would accompany it. putting our laborers, operating engineers, teamsters, work, uction workers to they support legislation that are undermining these jobs. to e projects are meant develop our natural resources to ensure our energy independence mr. speaker, to ensure our energy independence and not reliance on foreign and hostile nations to this country.
responsibly develop our energy with the strongest environmental standards and standards in the world. mr. speaker, i urge my this bill.to oppose let's listen to those affected projects and ese do what's right. you. the chair: the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: mr. speaker, i two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my colleague, the entleman from california, for yielding. mr. chairman, i'm proud to rise this bill, pport of as someone who's had the rivilege of spending two weeks in the arctic national wildlife refuge 15 years ago. life-changing trip. is 's beauty and majesty almost beyond description. paddling the river and along the
shore of the sea, my companions and i experienced an astounding and animals in a mix unique to the region, a our iconic corner of earth. anyone who says it's an empty there's nothing a re is committing sacrilegious, as far as i'm concerned. place to me and no wonder it's a sacred place to people.h'in drilling in anwr would xacerbate the regional effect as well as hastening catastrophic warming generally. prevent this ust administration's reckless effort o open up anwr to oil and gas development to prevent dangerous cultural impacts. we can't allow it to happen on our watch. i paddled down the river, i visited these places that are planned for drilling. hiking along lly
the plain. we came upon these drill pads. rageous to drill in these places. they are nysing grounds for birds and homes to other exist that just don't anywhere else. i invite any of my colleagues who have the ability to travel your own power paddling and join me to go back to anwr. i don't think you'd want to did. there if you i thank congressman huffman for his leadership on this and i chairman grijalva and i thank my -- and i ask my colleagues to support this bill. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. reserve.an: i the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: it's an honor to to the gentlelady from cheney. hosea -- ms. cheney. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. cheney: i want to thank my colleague from alaska for yielding.
rise in strong opposition to this legislation. i wish i could say that i am bills that are being brought before us this week, but i am not. the democratic war on our economy, on america's families, and on fossil fuels continues. energy independence is crucial for our economy and security. i stand in strong solidarity ith my friend and colleague from alaska, someone who is a mentor, not just to me, but to all on our side of the aisle. partly, i stand in solidarity i, like mr. use young, represent my entire state. alaska, wyoming is no stranger to outsiders thinking what's best for us. the legislation we have before echos the majority's goal of making the green new us a reality, by making increasingly dependent on foreign sources of energy. join day, mr. speaker, i
my colleagues, whip scalise, and the house committee on natural member, mr. nking bishop, to introduce the act.can energy first our bill would end unnecessary overreach from washington states tos and enable manage energy production on lands within our borders. our all-of-the-above pro-energy our lation would help put families to, would, further our energy independence, and put our national security at the forefront. itself on our fossil fuels. we know that our economy, that security depends upon these. we consider our fossil fuels to treasures and, mr. speaker, we thank god for our fossil fuels. stand here today to oppose misguided, anti-energy anti-independence that my
colleagues have put forward. oppose y colleagues to this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. young: thank you, liz. the chair: the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: mr. speaker, this about energy independence. if my friends across the aisle were concerned about energy independence, they certainly wouldn't have lifted the crude il export ban in previous congress, and if they wanted to talk about putting that crude oil export ban in place -- back place, we'd have something to work together on and we could actually take a step towards independence, but the truth is we are awash in oil right now. e are exporting millions of barrels of oil a day while we continue to import all that big, imported oil that sometimes my friends across the aisle are concerned about. what this is really about is money and profits for big oil. make a lot more money when they can export that oil in the world market. why when we talk about developing the coastal plain of the arctic refuge, no one should
be confused by these claims that would go to american consumption. it won't. t will find top dollar on the global export market, because that's where big oil can make the most money, and that's the agenda, we heard about, is all about. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. yumming: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. graves. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the representative from alaska for yielding time. i want to say it again, i want to thank the gentleman from alaska. the soul member -- seoul member representing all alaskans in the house of representatives who joins with his senators, the entire alaska delegation, in opposing this bill. i heard mr. stauber come down earlier and talk about how we don't need people from other states, from california coming in and imposing their beliefs
on alaska. we have a constitutional -- we have a structure here where members of the state of alaska, residents of the state of alaska, they elect their representatives. and their representatives are unanimously supporting the development in anwr. they unanimously support it. why do we have this structure where other people come in -- it is fascinating to me we can be here and have folks from california who sit here and all the time ask for exceptions, ask for their own conditions and rules in california and then they now come in and know better and need to tell alaskans what needs to be done. i just heard allegations that this was about oil company profits and other things. his is about what the citizens of alaska want. what their elected representatives are doing to represent their own constituents. now, to give you an idea how much of a farce this whole thing is, do you realize that this is the third bill that is
using the same funding stream to pay for everything? we have taken $1 an paid $3 with it. how do you do that? this entire thing is a farce. to take it steap further to let you know what a farce this is. when this bill came up in the natural resources committee, i offered an amendment that said if this bill results in greater greenhouse gas emissions then this bill doesn't take place, it's not enacted. you know my democrat friends voted against t. meaning they want greater emissions in greenhouse gases? this whole thing is a farce. this is going to result in greater, greater dependence upon foreign oil imports, greater -- mr. young: one more minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. graves: thank you, mr. young. this is going to result in greater dependence upon imports of energy. we have seen it over and over again. we had career officials sit right in front of us in the natural resources committee that testified that when you stop domestic production, that you become more dependent.
look upon my friend's only state of california that has become increasingly dependent upon oil from saudi arabia. increasing their imports of oil from saudi arabia. look at our friends up in the northeast that have to import natural gas from putin's russia and burn heavy heating oil to help warm the homes in the northeast because they similarly cut off their energy supplies. this makes no sense whatsoever. we are doing it under the auspicious of an environment that this very bill threatens. i urge rejection of this amendment -- of this legislation. and rejection of this entire farce process. yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. we just heard some pretty high sanctimony about the need to listen to the people that actually live there. that might be convincing but
for the fact that just yesterday my friends voted to override the wishes of the people that actually live on the atlantic and pacific coast, the wishes of their governors, mayors, overwhelming majorities of their populations who don't wreck their pristine wreck the coastlines and put their coastal economies at risk because of oil development. again, let's not pretend that this is about listening to local voices. this is about listening to one voice and that is the voice of big oil. let's take it back to alaska, even in the hotbed of oil development, as my friends will tell it, of the village, a 2016 poll in that community indicated that that community itself is divided on the question of whether oil and gas development should proceed. again, let's not be selective or hypocritical about the voices we claim to care about. certainly the voice of big oil is well represented here today
in this debate. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: mr. chairman, at this time i'm happy to yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. upton: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the bill. i served as the former chairman now of the energy and commerce committee and now serve as the top republican on the energy subcommittee. in those years i helped develop, promote, and implement north american energy independent plan. it includes all of the above. yes, renewable energy as well. i can remember the gas lines, i can remember paying higher prices for natural gas. i can remember $4 and $5 per gallon gas prices. and i can remember sending $1 billion every day to the middle east. i smiled this last weekend when i filled up for $2.25. i smile now when i know we can
export rather than import oil from places that may not be so friendly to the united states. so, if this bill passed, as well as the other two that passed yesterday, and somehow became enacted into law, we have this thing called supply and demand. guess what? our consumers will pay much higher gas prices and we will lose out. i urge my colleagues to vote no. the chair: the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: mr. chairman, at this time i'm happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. i wish to thank my colleague from alaska, the dean of the house here, mr. young, for his strong efforts for many
years on opening up this important piece of energy for our country, for our whole grid. it's fascinating to listen to the debate here. ever piece of land, everything we would ever go to develop whether it's for a pipeline, for energy, forestry, the moment somebody approaches that resource, this god given resources we have all over this country, and now becomes this pristine, untouchable nonusable land that we shouldn't have anything to do it with as humankind. salvage longing after a fire. can't do that. have to sue. hear a lot about big oil. how about big enviro? there are a lot of people who make loot of money, six digit fits in this town, a lot of dollars come in by invoking a picture of an animal who probably was a victim of a fire in a forest because we are not managing that. 47,000 acres of burning fire
right in my district in northern california because we are not allowed to manage these lands. almost everybody here in this congress that lives more than a few hundred miles away flew here in a jet to get to this place to do this session. where's the hypocrisy being talked about with the amount of energy everybody uses. to come from somewhere. for us to live as we do. to keep the lights on in this place torques keep it cool in here. to keep in warm in the winter, especially the northeast where it's extremely cold. oil is needed, energy is needed. we hear we are exporting oil, importing oil. there are different types of oil for different types of purposes, too. you have different types of food. exchange for different, we have different tichese oil, different energy. we want our european allies be reliant on iranian oil? is that what we are asking? reliant upon russian natural
gas in our european theater? no. we need to be mart of that matrix, the united states. if we are an exporter or self-sufficient, we need to be active on this. this postage stamp size of area in alaska -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamalfa: we know how to ecolocally do well. this isn't 1850, we are not going to do horrible environmental damage. we know how do this right . when that resource is used someday, we'll put it back. we need to develop under our own country, own rules, instead of the arrogance to rely on countries that do it without rules such as china and the middle east and others that don't have our best interest or the environment at heart. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: i reserve, mr. speaker. prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. mr. young: mr. chairman, at this point i would like to include in the record a statement of administration policy on this bill which
indicates the president's advisors would recommend he veto it. if it unlikely gets to his desk. the chair: that's covered under general leave. mr. young: i would like to insert in the record at this point a letter in strong opposition to this bill signed by 20 entities, including the u.s. chamber of commerce, consumer energy alliance, from the from the n labors indnasht union in north america. the chair: that will also be covered under general leave. mr. young: i would like to insert for the record a letter from the president a strong opposition to this legislation. the chair: that will also be covered under general leave. mr. young: at this time, mr. chairman, i'd like to give whatever time he may consume to the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, the former chairman of the committee, ranking member at this time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: i was hoping you would insert me in the record as well. i appreciate the opportunity being here. we are here today due of the democratic week of energy proposals. once again we'll quote earl
weaver when went out to the umpire and said, if this is as good as it gets or are you going to get better? i'll say the same thing on this bill as we did yesterday. this as good as it gets or are you going to get better? this is the same concept we had with the first bill that we did. we discussed the first bill yesterday in which we did things that are basically illogical. not for science region. science is safely taken out and shoved in a trash can. we did it for political reasons. it is signified by the amendments that the rules committee unfortunately made in order in which we made amounts in order to have all sorts of studies on the issue. in the real world you are trying to do a study, come up results, and then a polsism 245es that's not what we did yesterday. we decide on a policy and institute a lot of noncomprehensive skewed studies to try and see if we can come up with arguments in favor of the policy we already did. it's backwards.
ok to do it, you have the votes, that's fine. don't have the awe castity to say that this administration doesn't trust science or that we don't trust science over here when you also put an amendment in there to deny any kind of seismic research which would give you the data we haven't had since the 1980's. only some of that seismic data. it was -- it's a cued approach to t but the most significant issue is the one that mr. huffman has raised several times today. in which he was right, slightly offcenter with it but he's actually right. yesterday many of the arguments that were made were that the states and state populations in these areas want a kind of moratorium on drilling in their areas. i get that. listening to those people is a good thing to do. where you got it wrong, though, is they weren't talking the states who were wanting that were not talking about the areas within their states or even the water that abuts their states, they wanted the ability to control what happens on federal waters which is not
part of the state's concept. once again if you would allow me the ability to have control of what happened on federal lands in my state, in the state, we might have an apples and apples situation, but that ain't it. there is also the concept that there was not consultation with native americans who live in alaska and that once again is actually inaccurate again. there have been consultations going on since you were playing volleyball in college. and they will continue to go on from that state, that side. and in fact that's where the difference comes. the people in alaska who live there don't want this bill. and once again they don't want it because it's impacting their state, their property, their land which is not what was happening yesterday where states were trying to impact what was happening on federal water. it was sad when we had the hearing on this bill the democrats did not invite those residents of this area to testify, we did. and when they came in march to
testify, the tribal leaders from the only village in this coastal plain, the one closest to this area, simply said they were against this bill. their exact quote was we will not become conservation refugees. we do not approve of your efforts to turn our homeland into one giant national park which would literally guarantee us a fate with no economy, no jobs, reduce substance, and no hope for the future of our people. that's what they want in their areas. when some of the other speakers said consultation, that's not true. mr. young is saying exactly what the constituents want in their area, and even though this land is controlled by fish and wildlife, the mineral resources are not federal. these people who are testifying, they don't want this bill, these people, these people own a majority or significant portion of those mineral rights. it's their minerals. they should have the ability of saying what they want to. they have spoken clearly year
after year after year. and that's where the difference of yesterday and the difference of today is significant. and you are glossing over that. that is significant. these people need to have the ability of controlling their own destiny and they are not trying to control something that's not within the state. it is their resources. it is their area. we have had this debate before. we had it when i first came in here. it's going to continue on ad nauseam. the problem is this is not a good energy position for the future. . this makes this country stronger. the stuff democrats are putting week is energy disjointed, discombobulated and oesn't help anyone
doesn't help anyone at all. once again, i'll agree with mr. young. trust his people on what they want to do with their resources. not federal. their resources. back.d the chair: the gentleman from alaska reserves. california isfrom recognized. mr. huffman: thanks, mr. speaker. it is important to remember that e're talking about a federal wildlife refuge, america's arctic refuge. lose sight of that, erhaps, listening to the pretzel logic we heard from our friend who, at the end of the day, cannot square the concern for local voices when it comes to drilling in a federal refuge pretzel throughouting of ocal -- flouting of local voices on drilling in the atlantic and pacific coast. dizzying.nect is with that i'd like to yield a minute and a half to the gentlelady from colorado, ms. one of the members of congress who actually spent some time in the arctic refuge. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. s. degette: thank you, mr.
chairman. in 2017 with little debate, the chamber quietly approved to open up the arctic oil nal wildlife refuge to and gas drilling. anwr is our nation's largest wildlife refuge. ancestral home to the gwich'in people and current home species of 250 wildlife, including threatened pecies like polar bears, that raise their cubs did. as the chairman said, i've traveled to this special place. with the gwich'in people. i saw the pristine beauty of the plain, and iplain, and i saw thousands of porcupine caribou in their annual migration process. i know how important this refuge ecosystem.ntire instead of protecting this important environment, this is going to open up to drilling and allow it to an estroyed for indeterminant amount of oil. why? overwhelming number of
american people are opposed to this plan. they want this land preserved, destroyed. this bill, h.r. 1146, will block the administration's disastrous refuge. protect the i strongly urge all of my i leagues to support it, and yield back the balance of my time. mr. huffman: i reserve, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. i am ung: at this time happy to yield to the gentleman gosar.rizona, mr. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gosar: i rise in opposition to the unwarranted legislation. two bills we debated yesterday, this bill will hinder our energy dominance. s someone that went to the arctic national wildlife refuge, 1002, what ittion the local population. only does energy development
in section 1002 has support of habitants of the region, it has support of my colleague, don two , and alaska's senators. the majority of alaskans support it. very governor since 1980 supported it. 100% of alaska's delegation it.e 1980 supported and the natives that live right cabbing toefbic -- toefb -- kaktovic, it.ort this is how the energy resources committee operate. care that locals oppose this legislation. they believe that washington, the extremist the extremist environmental groups know bet and everyone should go with extremism and section 1002 can greatly benefit our energy's
security. they believe that section 1002 than 10 million barrels of oil. not to mention natural gas. the othere example of side putting left-wing extremism he can lawal -- of local voices. in a firm believer all-of-the-above energy production and multiple use. lands, like section power to the unlimited power our country. section 1002 is a small sliver in this area. acres, in fact. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gosar: i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and i yield back. mr. young: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: i reserve, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. is gentleman from alaska recognized. mr. young: does the gentleman have the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from alifornia has the right to close. mr. young: mr. chairman, my colleagues, this is a
bill, and i heard people say there was no consultation. there was consultation. he gentleman from california has driven a wedge between two groups of alaskan natives. there, reside there, directly affected, the other one is 400 miles away. we had testimony from that group -- by the way, i am a gwich'in. be one but my daughters are, my wife was, and she would turnover in her grave heard this nonsense about the gwich'in. used to be the house of the people. instead of people putting their don't put business, i it in your business. i'll figure out a way to do that. wrong. this is this has been debated for 40 years. by the set aside congress for exploration. and by the way, we gave the natives that live there, land for their
social, economic well-being, and away from ing it them. you talk about a cultural aspect. you are hurting those people. you don't care. remember who you represent, and i understand that. you're a lawyer. to me, to have this type of bill the floor is not only a wasted time of this house body, but a bad thing for this nation, worse than that, going back on the word. represent allstate of -- the all of the state of alaska. he gwich'in are being very frankly chilled, used for a sham. that's a shame. be what you want to be. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. r. young: you can stand there holier than thou. you are doing something bad for the alaskan native. to one side. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. young: with that i urge a this legislation. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. r. huffman: thank you, mr.
speaker. i have a lot of respect and affection for the dean of the house. that we are on opposite sides of this issue. i'm also sorry that it seems comes to oil and gas development in the arctic refuge to only some of the voices in the alaska community. chair, this week, dozens of gwich'in leaders flew all the way to washington, d.c., as they've done many, many times over the years, long before i working on this bill. and they do that because the rctic refuge is not simply a policy issue for them. it's not about energy supplies geopoliticks or scoring points.l it's about their entire way of life. those of us on the floor today don't worry about our entire and culture hinge on the outcome of this vote. gallery 'in are in the behind me right now. at stake.ctly what's and for those on the other side
who would have us destroy this sacred area for some petroleum profits, i'd ask them now?-- why why do we need to do this now? because once it's done, it's done. never be l plain will the same again after the drill rigs roll in. we wait, if we conserve, if we protect, if we treat this care it rea with the deserves, then it will still be undisturbed for generations to enjoy. or maybe my grandchildren will debating congressman oung's great-great-grandchildren on this issue on the same floor. i don't mind the debate. that's what this country is all about. but recklessly throwing open one in he most special places this country because a few oil companies want even higher profits and president trump a win, that is not fine. that is not worth it. i urge my colleagues to protect arctic, stand with the
gwich'in people and vote yes on coastal c cultural and plain protection act. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the chair would remind members that the rules do not allow references for persons in the gallery. ll time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for mendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on printed in thees bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute text of rules he committee print 116-30, modified printed in part c of house report 116-200 shall adopted.ered as the bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the amended, shall be in order except those printed in 116-200.f house report each further amendment printed in part d of the report may be in the order
printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, for the time able specified in the report equally the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject for demand for division of the question. it's now in order to consider printed in mber 1 116-200.f house report for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part d of house 200 offered by mr. young of alaska. he chair: pursuant to house resolution 548, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and a member opposed, each will five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. r. young: mr. chairman, we discussed this before. this bill was written by the gentleman from california. impacts alaska. it impacts it only. i am the only congressman. i strongly oppose this legislation.
my amendment, very frankly, will try to solve one of the problems. lack of consultation with kaktovic, the and he gwich'in will have to consult with the people of kaktovic, and would inquire of understand if they didn't agree with it, very frankly, this would not go forth. it's a good amendment. if the gentleman says it's culturally real, you have to sides.to both this amendment solves this. makes it bill not totally good but better. i reserve. mr. huffman: i rise to claim time in opposition, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman is minutes.ed for five mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. unfortunately, this amendment is tactic to delay the bill's protection for the arctic refuge from taking effect until of interior, a
walking conflict of interest, who became the subject of into ethical violations just four days into quote,, has conducted a, onsultation process and received one coll sully take from one village, the village of kaktovic. i hope the same communication existed before the republican tax bill was amended mandate this drilling without any consultation. native american tribes. certainly not of the gwich'in may live technically away from the drilling area, but about who have epended on the porcupine carib again, we're cherry icking, i'm frayed, which
afraid, which i now reserve the balance of my time. mr. young: this bill passed out outhe house of the house 14 times. 14 times. consultation. and all due respect to my friends from gwich'in, i'd like to take count of the caribou harvested this last year and year before. it's a very small number. there righthat live on the shores and with them with saying this is ok. prudhoe bay. we have more caribou now than we ever had. this is, again, a sham. is such a dishonest presentation of something that's at all but, again, eople can do that, i understand. we ought to understand one thing, this bill should never have came to the floor. it is not the first
did pass this 14 times out of the house. in control.u were now, it's the wrong thing to do. it but te didn't pass once and bill clinton vetoed that. again, not t saying, talking about it much it much more, we can go ahead and vote on this today. but this amendment solves one of the problems. true consultation with two groups of individual alaskan natives, both having some say in it, one totally not listened to because you never asked them and and s an unfortunate thing i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from alaska reserves. mr. huffman: mr. speaker, let's careful about the facts. more caribou than we have ever had before? certainly the case for herd.rcupine caribou precisely, because it has had wilderness of the management of the coastal plain
of the arctic refuge, so migratory its pattern and its calving. of the ut the rest arctic, caribou are in trouble. herds are declining. very recently study has confirmed there. let's take note of the fact we have one place where caribou are thriving. let's not wreck that place with oil and gas development. like to recognize the gentlelady from new mexico, the chair of the public lands representative representative haaland. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. . ms. haaland: it is well-known i'm deeply committed to ensure proper consultation with indian tribes that impact them. but this amendment isn't really about tribal consultation. if it were, republicans would have insisted on this provision before the arctic refuge was added to the tax bill and opened up for drilling and they
would also be insisting on consultation with all tribes, including the gwich'in people who get sustenance from the porcupine caribou herd that will be directly impacted by drilling on the coastal plain. just because certain alaska natives don't quote-unquote, live there, doesn't mean they don't have ancestral ties to the land. in fact this land is imperative to their present and future existence. the real purpose of this amendment is to delay protecting the refuge until this administration is able to give it away to oil and gas companies when it will be too late. if we stop the leasing process first, i would fully support a orough consultation with the people and look to emprove the quality of life of the people of kaktovik without drilling the arctic refuge. we can't drill first and ask questions later because there is no going back. i urge a no vote on this
amendment. i yield to you. mr. huffman: i yield. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. mr. young: i'm urging a yes vote on this amendment and no on the legislation itself. again i think you've done it a great disservice to the people of alaska. especially the natives. you divided us. that's not right. the floor of this house is divided culture. different cultures alaska natives. for that i'm deeply regretful. it shows what you can do when you interfere with other people's districts. this house used to be a house of the people. now it's a house of what? what have you done in two years? nothing. now you are trying to undo what as done legitimately, 40 years, i understand it. you got the votes. i understand that. 8 -- it's not going to become law. i hope you understand that.
we are going to have a sale. i hope you understand that. and my people that i represent will get their just due. i know that. it with that i yield. the chair: the gentleman from alaska yields. mr. huffman: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. huffman: mr. speaker, as i said this amendment is a delay tactic to ensure that the current administration will lock in a lease sale before protections can go into place or before they are finally run out of office. it does not require consultation with the gwich'in people, many of whom are here today. these are the folks who consider the coastal plains sacred. they have relied on the porcupine caribou herd since time and memorial for their cultural, spiritual, and physical sustenance as well as food security. there was no demand for tribal consultation prior to this
little provision being slipped into the tax giveaway in the previous congress. what we are hearing today is a very selective interest in consultation that would place the entire process in the hands of a department of interior whose only interest is serving the interests of big oil. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and yes on the underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. young: mr. chairman, you need a hearing aid. but, mr. chairman, i ask for the yeas and nays. recorded vote. the chair: gentleman requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part d of house report 116-200. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: mr. chairman, i have
an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in part d of house report number 116-200, offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: it pursuant to house resolution 548, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. the chair: -- mr. gosar: i rise to allow section 2 moratorium goo-g into effect when the department of interior in consultation with the department of labor certifies the anti-energy moratorium in the bill will not kill a substantial number of tribal, minority, and women jobs. we heard arguments from democratic members on the other side of the aisle against a similar amendment that the amendment doesn't matter and is meaningless. how callous that response? tell the opponents of this amendment to tell that to the single mother working to put food on the table for her two children that her job doesn't matter. family t the minority
who just moved into family who just moved into a new neighborhood so their kids could go to better schools? tell those hardworking minority parents these jobs don't matter. tell those local tribe members, the inupiat, the only tribe within the 1002 section, who want these jobs. their prosperity comes to their community with these jobs. that these economic benefits don't matter. under the current administration, unemployment has reached record lows. in august the national unemployment rate rathe sat at 3.7%, with the unemployment rate for african-american workers sitting at 5.5%, breaking the previous record of 5.9% set in may of 2018. according to a recent report by "the washington post," a bastion of conservative dictation, nearly 90% of the jobs added under this administration have gone to minority communities. this can be attributed to that for the first time a majority of new hires are people between the ages of 25 and 54 and are from minority communities.
according to statistics published by the american president trump institute, minorities will comprise 1/3 of the total work force in the oil and gas sector by 2030. women already comprise more than 15% of oil and gas work force. these are good-paying jobs, $90,000 and above. hardworking families depends on. this legislation puts these opportunities and associated economic benefits at risk. america's energy renaissance has boosted the economies of previously left behind towns and areas and sections of this country and have turned them into vibrant communities. mr. chairman, this is a commonsense amendment, protects minority tribal members and women jobs, and puts the interests of the american work force first. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. huffman: i rise to claim time in opposition, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. houghman: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment i'm sorry to say is another delay tactic in
order to buy this administration more time to jam through a lease sale. we know that former assistant secretary joe baylash said earlier this year the lease sale will happen in 2019 and that the administration is running over all opposition in order to make that happen. ignoring concerns of wildlife biologists, impacts from seismic testing and oil development itself. i said former assistant secretary when i referred to him because he left the department of interior just days ago. he was the top official, remember, pushing for drilling in the arctic refuge, and he left to take a job with an oil company that stands to profit from the trump administration's oil giveaway bonanza. you can't make this stuff up, folks. anyone who thought teapot dome was the high water mark of corruption at the department of interior, i hope is paying attention to the incredible, braven levels of corruption we are seeing today.
these are the folks that this amendment would entrust with the authority to call the shots on whether drilling should proceed. unfortunately, this is not a serious proposal. i urge my colleagues to oppose it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar: how offensive. how offensive that argument. particularly when you look at the department of labor. hardly a bastion in regards to the corruptness, at least in this administration. amazing. amazing that jobs we see the empowerment of people taking them away from the victimhood that the democrats so desperately need. particularly the native americans that are empowered right here with the money anti-jobs to lift them up from the poverty they actually see. amazing. absolutely amazing. so, it seems to me when you start looking at this application, in consultation with the department of labor,
makes a big, big difference. now, when you look at this, american oil and gas production is nearly responsible for 10 million jobs. that's a huge amount. we discussed earlier 90% of these jobs in this sector are going to women and minorities. that's a fabulous number. that's the american dream. this is a commonsense application that congress has got to get used to to understand the ramifications, the true ramifications of our intent. with that i ask everybody to vote for this amendment and with that i yield back. the chair: t-gentleman from california reserves. you have the only time left, sir. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. i will go ahead and close. mr. speaker, the impacts on jobs for native americans, for minorities, for women this should not be used as a pretext for more oil and gas drilling,
especially in a pristine place like the arctic refuge. these are frontline communities that often bear the brunt of pollution and environmental justice impacts and is deeply cynical to try to suggest that their interests would be a reason to push for more drilling in a place like the arctic refuge. mr. speaker, if my colleagues want to work on jobs and the economic interests of these communities, we have a lot to work together on, but we should do that in a way that looks to the future. squeezing a little more fossil fuel out of a special place like the arctic refuge is not the future. developing clean renewable energy resources absolutely are the future. and i hope someday we can get to the point where we are working together to create great well-paying jobs in those future interests instead of trying to look backward to the era of fossil fuels which i hope we can bring to an end as
quickly as possible. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. gosar: 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 arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3, printed in house report number 116-200. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar klan mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in part d of house report number 116-200, offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 548, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: mr. chair, i ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified in the
form i have placed at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the modification. the clerk: modification offered by mr. gosar of arizona. striket secretary of labor and insert director of united states fish and wildlife service. the chair: is there objection? without objection. the amendment is modified. the gentleman is recognized. mr. gosar: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the modified amendment allows section 2 of the bill to go into effect when the d.u.i. in consultation with the fish and wildlife service certifies that bill will not bill will harm caribou herd population. it has been proven that over the time the caribou herds of the north slope can coexist and thrive with energy development that takes place there. and many of my republican colleagues and members of the western caucus have seen this firsthand. we have seen -- have gone to great lengths that industry and
regional government, alaska natives and others, have gone through to protect the caribou. in march of this year the tribal administrator of the native village testified, and i quote, through the use of science and traditional knowledge, best practices have been implemented to reduce or avoid impacts such as adequate ipeline heights, do not impede igreating migreating caribou, sufficient distances between pipeline and road to avoid deterring crossing dare by, specifications or road height and slope, thoughtful design on road placement to avoid funneling migrating caribou, aircraft altitude guidelines, and other restrictions on operation, end of quote. again, the quote, these safeguards have been worked to protect caribou across the north slope and we are confident that these in coordination with the people of kaktovik. these mechanisms can successfully ally to oil and gas programs in the coastal plain, end of quote. i have seen the pipeline that
goes through the area occupied by the herd are now 10 to 15 feet in the air, allowing the herd to easily pass underneath them to facilitate migration and breeding. this was done voluntarily at the industry's expense. statistics have shown that the caribou herds that inhabit areas in and around areas where oil and gas production is taking place have actually grown in size. whereas herds that have inhabited areas where no oil and gas has taken place have declined. we have heard the false narrative that caribou populations are declining and oil and gas production is to blame. that's simply not true. for example, the porcupine herd located within the proposal development has fluctuated greatly, even without the oil and gas development taking place. from 1989 to 2001, the porcupine herd population decreased by nearly 1/3 even while no oil and gas production was taking place on the lands
inhabited. . this stands in stark contrast to those adjacent to anwr where oil and gas development takes place. herd ntral arctic caribou grew from 5,000 caribou in 1975, about the time development almost 32,000 in 2002. in short, oil and gas production has proven to be good for the central arctic caribou herd and caribou have even been found to migrate to the pipeline due to the heat they put off. in the those that live anwr region as political pawns. the , statistics show caribou herd populations can benefit with responsible oil and gas development. this amendment challenges that false narrative that's clearly een disproven with the population explosion of the central arctic caribou herd in oil and gas producing areas.
further, this commonsense amendment provides further protection for caribou herds by this bill won't negatively impact these populations. i urge everybody to vote for his amendment, and this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. huffman: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. this ffman: mr. speaker, is, unfortunately, another delay tactic intended to enable this to rush through oil lease sales in the arctic i'm frayed, my friends across the aisle are really stretching. this argument that oil for caribou s good is something we have herd before -- heard before. been debunked every single time we hear it, but if you craven ant to see the nature of this proposal, focus who e fact that the person would make the decision, who that balance between oil drilling and caribou protection is none other than interior, mr. f
barnhart, who temporarily left he payroll of the oil and gas industry for little time in public service and has never stopped representing their interests and we all know that a year and a half from now he'll be right back on big oil's payroll. is not a serious argument. this is a delay tactic. i urge a no vote on this amendment, and reserve the -- of my my tiechlt time. he chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar: once again, we are the flawed unk science that the other side looks at. we have two different articles that have been peer reviewed and for the submit them record. the caribou herd that's been associated with oil and gas expanding fromly 30,000 to 32,000. are hard to come by when they don't benefit you within the discussion. what they untrue have been trying to narrate under thises a echt.
under this aspect. empowering local communities and tribes can happen. ooking at this in a comprehensive fashion. this is a commonsense amendment. this is not about delay. this is about proper orientation. whether it be jobs associated the it, whether it be numbers of critical habitat, numbers of populations within factsritical habitat, the just don't stand up for the other side. that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the request to submit will bes for the record will beunder covered under general leave. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: i reserve, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. is gosar: once again, this a very good amendment. once again, when we want to start talking about facts, facts exploited by the other side that are truly false. looking at the facts. when a herd goes from one 5,000 when it's 32,000, associated with oil drilling in that area, where a herd declines
by 1/3 where there is no drilling there, there's got to of prospect here. you know, he doesn't just rise. associated with the protection. so when you start looking at industry and industry and indi have done to promote these herds, this is a stellar amendment. i hope that everybody votes for this and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. again, this oil and gas drilling that's good for caribou is right out of the thank you for smoking playbook. it's just not true. to rather than subscribe these alternative facts, we need look no further than the latest have.ble science that we it's from the 2018 arctic report card, which found that caribou across the arctic have actually declined by 56% decades.last two and yet, there's one exception is the trend, and that
porcupine caribou herd, which has shown strength. news.s good t shows the importance of the national wildlife refuge system and the wisdom of protecting this area in the first place. the arctice place in where caribou are thriving. it's a place where we haven't done oil and gas development. the coastal ck plain of the arctic refuge. if we care about caribou, then, absolutely vote no on this amendment and vote yes on the underlying bill. yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. gosar: mr. chairman, i ask vote.recorded pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings -- he amendment offered by on the amendment, as modified, will be postponed.
pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, now resume on l those amendments in part d of which eport 116-200 on further proceedings were postponed in the following order. mr. young umber 1 by of alaska, amendment number 2 by arizona, amendment umber 3, as modified, by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on printed in mber 1 part d of house report 116-200 by the gentleman from alaska, young, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 house in part d of
offered by mr. ffered by young of alaska. 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 will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 193 and the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part d of house report 116-200 by the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, on which further explosion were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part d of house report 116-200 offered by mr.
gosar of arizona. the chair: those in support of 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. 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 epresentatives.]
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 184, the nays are 237. the amendment is not adopted. the the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote inamendment number 3 printed part d of house report 116-200 as modified by the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part d of house report 116-200 offered by mr. gosar of arizona, as modified. 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. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1146 and according to resolution 548 i report the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 1146 and pursuant to house resolution 548, reports the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend public law 115-97 commonly known as the tax cuts and jobs
act to repeal the arctic national wildlife refuge program and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? >> mr. speaker, mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> yes, in it's current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: totion motion to recommit, mr. curtis of utah moves to recommit the bill h.r. 1146 to the committee on natural resources with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith
with the following amendment. at the end of the bill add the following, section, effective date, section 2 of this act shall take effect on the date the president certifies that the enactment of this act will not result in a net increase of russian oil and gas imports nto the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. curtis: mr. speaker, this house is still not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. curtis: mr. speaker, we are all familiar with the familyous line from thomas jefferson -- famous line from thomas jefferson. the government closest to the people serves people the best. so how is it that we are here today considering a bill that has been opposed by every member of the alaskan delegation since 1980?
not just the alaskan delegation, but every governor of alaska since 1980, and even the gubernatorial candidates last year, two republicans, an independent, and a democrat all opposed this bill. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. please suspend your conversations. the gentleman will suspend. you may continue. mr. curtis: this week, many of my friends across the aisle sought to protect their coastlines by banning offshore energy development. they know what's best in their states. apparently this same standard of local control does not apply to mr. young, who is the only person in this body elected by the residents of alaska. not only is this bill opposed by the entire alaskan delegation, it's opposed by the local alaskan native population and written without their consultation.
as a member who representslele bears ears, i hear from my colleagues all the time how important it is to have native american consultation and their rights. however, with local alaska native opposition to this bill and no consultation, there seems to be a double standard. in fact, just three days ago i sat in a hearing where b.l.m.'s criticized for not working with the native population. they held 11 hearings, seven listening sessions, apparently not enough. so unless i missed 18 trips of my colleagues to alaska, we are working with a double standard. those of you -- the house is not in order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: jad will suspend. i would ask everybody please to cease conversation or return to the cloakroom. please continue.
mr. curtis: thank you. those of you from states with very little federal ownership have a difficult time what it's like being from a state or county with 90% federal ownership. iimagine being a local elected official, maintaining roads, police, fire, sewers, parks when only 10% of your property generates property tax. at the end of the day mr. young and the native alaskans, not the rest of us, should be determining the fate of alaska. i have heard the arguments, mr. eaker -- the speaker pro tempore: you may resume. mr. curtis: thank you, mr. speaker. i have heard the argument that this development will contribute to climate change. really? i'm listening. this is one republican that believes the climate is changing and has managed influencing it. i am baffled, but i'm baffled
why so many of you will give a pass to a human rights violating dictator in china and deny the local native alaskans the right to have a living off the land. if we were serious about climate change, i've got an idea for you. let's take all of the natural gas we are putting back into the ground in anwr, send it to china and india, and we would do more to reduce global carbon emission than by implementing the entire green new deal. i hear the term science denier tossed around, but i ask you, who is denying science the most? those who ignore 85% of carbon coming from outside the united states, or those who think that impacting .01% of anwr will destroy the alaskan environment. let's put this in perspective. anwr is less than 5% of alaska.
this project is less than .01% of anwr. to give you a perspective, that's like taking a janitorial closet in the capitol of 175 feet and putting hvac in it to keep us warm and cool. that's the perspective. when the other side is ready to fight climate change, republicans stand ready. this is not one of those times. to start, my friend, greg walden and his colleagues on energy and commerce, seem to have the ability to generate a bill almost daily that would truly impact the true problems with climate change. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. he house will come to order. the gentleman may resume. mr. curtis: this motion to recommit will prevent the bill from taking effect until the president certifies that will not result in a net increase of
russian oil and gas imports into the united states. the answer to climate change is not making the u.s. more reliant on fossil fuels. vote for this m.t.r. is a vote to support local alaskan natives. i repeat the answer to climate change is not making the u.s. more reliant on foreign fossil fuels. last time i checked ryan zinkey -- zinke was the only one riding a horse. i urge support of the motion to recommit. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. huffman: i rise to claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. huffman: thank you. mr. speaker, for those who have flights to catch and would like to get out of here, i think i have some good news. i think we can keep this short and pretty simple because this this ry
is a very simple bill. it reflects the proposition that there are someplaces that are simply too special, that are too unique, too environmentally vital, too sacred to indigenous people to wreck them with oil and gas development. surely that's something that most americans and even most people in this body regardless of their party could agree upon. in fact, we saw bipartisan votes yesterday that reflected that same proposition that the pristine coasts of the atlantic and the low country in south carolina and the beautiful california coast, these were places too special to wreck them with new oil and gas development. if you believe in this simple proposition, surely it must apply to america's largest wildlife refuge and biological heart of that, the coastal plain of the arctic wildlife refuge.
this motion to recommit is an attempt to distract us from that, to delay protections against this drilling so that this administration can rush a lease plan forward and frankly, by that time it's too late. you can't go backward once you open up a place like this to drilling. now my friend's concern for the local voices, some of whom in alaska want to see drilling, would be a lot more persuasive if yesterday we hadn't had a vote where my friends from across the aisle thumbed their nose at the local voices in california, florida and south carolina and other places who don't want drilling. let's be consistent and the reality, the only voice you are hearing is that of big oil.
now, this bill will not affect or impact our role in global energy markets in the slightest. the minority seems to believe we can provide enough oil if we just drill everywhere and let everyone break free of russian gas or saudi arabia oil. we are the largest oil producer in the world. we produce 12 million barrels of crude every single day and we are not going to be able to corner the market. i certainly don't think in light of that fact we should put at risk america's coastal jobs or biggest wildlife refuge in the arctic under this misguided notion of so-called energy dominance. things. things.with two first, for those who may have fiscal sensibility, i think there are still a few in this house that would like to talk about fiscal issues. last week, taxpayers for common sense said in an op ed and i would like to quote, mr. speaker
-- the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. quoting from taxpayers for common sense, drilling in the arctic refuge will be difficult and cost for mistakes will be high. prices are low. to his isn't the time develop to develop in marginal areas, it's not like the oil is going away. so without huge returns this will put taxpayers on the hook with a lot of risk with potential little reward. if drilling proposals in the arctic refuge moves forward, the joke is on us. end quote. let the joke not be on us, colleagues. i want to close by pointing out there are people who have traveled thousands of miles to with us, all the way from alaska. e indingenous who have
dependent on migratory birds, many of them are here today and ladies and gentlemen, none of us here on this floor have to worry about what our ancestors and what our families depend on for our way of life and culture, native acred, for the american people, colleagues, let's do the right thing for the environment and some places are too special to wreck with oil and gas drilling. let's do right. vote no on the m.t.r. and yes on the underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the question to re commit. those in favor say aye. . those opposed, no. he noes have it.
mr. curtis: i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. his 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.]
gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i call for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. number, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. his 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 epresentatives.] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 225 and the nays are 193. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 553. resolution directing the clerk of the house of representatives to provide a copy of the on the record portions of the audio backup file of a transscribed interview with roger j. stone jr., conducted by the permanent
select committee on intelligence on september 26, 2017, to the prosecuting attorneys in the case of the united states of merica vs. stone, number 119-cr-00018-abjddc. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the resolution? without objection, the resolution is agreed to. the motion to reconsider is laid n the table. the chair will steve a message. -- the chair will receive a message. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: mr. speaker, i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a essage in writing.
majority leader. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scalise: also i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. with that, i would be happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from maryland, to inquire about the schedule for next week. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, on tuesday, the house will meet at 12:00 p.m. for morning hour debate. and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. and with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday of next week, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour debate and 12:00 p.m. for legislative business. on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business and the last votes are expected no later than 3:00. we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. the complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. the house, mr. speaker, will consider a clean continuing resolution to fund the government past september 30. while the house did its work and
sent an appropriations -- sent 10 appropriation bills to the senate, funding 96% of the government, the first time that's been done in over three decades, i'm disappointed that the senate failed to pass a single appropriation bill. not one. not only that, they haven't filed any until just the other day. when we got back from the summer break. i'm disappointed that the senate failed to introduce a single appropriation bill for the first time in more than three decades. so that while we were very successful, the senate failed to move forward. therefore, as we wait for them to complete their work, so that we can begin conference negotiations, a continuing resolution will be necessary. to prevent another government shutdown like the one we experienced early this year. in addition, the house will consider h.r. 1423, forced
arbitration in justice repeal, ca called the fair act. the elimination would eliminate forced arbitration in employment, consumer and civil rights cases. so that americans, as they have under the constitution, would have the right to seek redress of grievances through the courts. this would restore access to justice for millions of americans who are currently locked out of the court system and are forced to settle their dispute against companies -- disputes against companies in unfair arbitration. i yield back to my friend. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding back. as it relates to the fubbleding of government, i know it's -- funding of government, i know it's important that as we finally got an agreement a few months ago to come up with a it two-year budget process -- a two-year budget process where we agreed on numbers of funding, especially for the defense department, which needs that certainty, they don't want these short-term c.r.'s, they need the
long-term certainty so they can acquire the kind of equipment we need to keep our men and women in uniform safe, to effectively do their jobs in a safe manner. one of the things i would point out, as the gentleman talked about the senate process, let's be clear that the house bills that were passed out moved in a very partisan basis. there were no bipartisan agreements, as you passed the bills out of the house. the senate does work differently. the senate has to have a 60-vote margin to get any bills moved. and so they've been in negotiations to try to get, not a partisan agreement, but a bipartisan agreement. unfortunately so far they've had a lot of problems from some of the senate democrats who have tried to put poison pills in those budget talks that would ultimately not yield something that could get signed into law. and would not comply with the two-year budget agreement that we reached. so i would encourage both on our side, there should have been a bipartisan agreement on the bills that are moved through, and at least there are some talks going on.
but they haven't resulted in bipartisan legislation. that can get signed by the president -- legislation that can get signed by the president. the senate needs to do the same thing. we're beyond the time for partisan difference. now is the time we need to come together and agree on those things that we can put in a bill that can get signed into law, drop this idea, these poison pills that everybody knows will gum up the works. let's get the certainty that we deserve for a full budget process for the year, we're not there yet. if we have to do a short-term budget agreement or short-term c.r., then that's one thing that we may consider next week. we haven't seen the final details, of course. it would have to be clean with no poison pills attached to it. but hopefully that yields talks that are truly bipartisan. which we haven't unfortunately seen to this point. so, i would hope that we can get beyond that, next week gives us more time to have real negotiations that can result in something that can get signed into law and give certainty to our men and women in uniform and
all the other agencies that rely on us doing that work in a bipartisan basis. i would like to shift gears and ask the gentleman about the united states-mexico-canada trade agreement, usmca. i would yield back. mr. hoyer: thank you for yielding. i understand, the gentleman said a lot of things about reaching bipartisan, all this sort of stuff. and the senate needs 60 votes. they didn't introduce a bill. not a single appropriation bill was introduced. you had the same 60-vote requirement last year, and they passed a lot of bills last year. the reason they didn't pass bills is because the president of the united states wouldn't come to the table and agree on caps. so they could have done the same thing we did. we are an independent branch of government.
we're the article i branch of government. we appropriate money. e spend money. but the senate has not done its work. and if you brought the bills to the floor and you couldn't get 60 votes, we get it. but i will tell my friend that there is great frustration. we for the first time since you've been a member of the 96% of the ed funding for government by june 30. otherwise known as three full months before the end of the fiscal year. giving the senate a lot of time. but, no, we had to wait and wait and wait until the president sent down secretary mnuchin and we finally made an agreement on 302-b's. excuse me, a's. in other words, the caps. what we were going to spend.
so, with all due respect to all this talk about bipartisanship and we need to work together, that's, of course, true. it was not true in the congresses when your party was in the majority. you passed partisan bills they went official to the senate, the senate didn't take them -- they went over to the senate, the senate didn't take them and we went back and forth. there's been no back and forth wetcht did our work -- back and forth. we did our work. and although you disagreed with the numbers publicly, privately, very frankly, a lot of your members told me the numbers were pretty good numbers. . and we passed a defense bill with a substantial increase for our troops and for our readiness d for operations and for training. and i say that, mr. whip, not to criticize you, but to simply say
all this verbiage about nice to get together -- the regular rder is we pass bills, the senate senate passes bills and then you have a conference. unfortunately, we have gotten away from that, which i think is very bad for the house, the senate and for the american people. and we cannot go to conference if the senate doesn't even pass a bill, doesn't even introduce a bill, waiting on the president of the united states to say, imon says. we can't get a bill supported by 90% of the american people. comprehensive background checks, which 90%, a majority of your party, my party and independents thinks it makes common sense.
we passed it in february and we can't even have it on the floor in the united states senate. so not only are they not doing appropriation bills but not doing other bills either. they spend all their time on judges. so we are a little frustrated on this side because we have done our work. 96% of government is funded and yes, there could have been differences of opinion and they should have passed bills and say, no, we don't agree. the problem they would have had, y friend, i tell, mr. speaker, my friend, that they didn't want to have bipartisan bills, because yes, it would have required them to get 60 votes. and they didn't want to make the compromises necessary to get 60 votes. and so we're here.
just a little more than 15 days before the end of the fiscal year and the senate has not passed a single bill while we have funded 96% of the government. this c.r. is necessary. no one wants to shut down government, i hope. hopefully the c.r. will not have anything that people disagrees with. and but i'm hopeful that the c.r. will get to the senate and pass the c.r., there will be no drama, and then as the gentleman suggests and i agree with him, sit down in a bipartisan way and try to reach agreement on the 12 appropriation bills and put them separately or in a minibus or omnibus and pass them to fund the government and not have what first last year, into the part of 2017, a shutdown of the government of the united states.
that was not good for the people of our country and not good for government employees or congress of the united states unable to do its work resulting in a shutdown of government. i appreciate the gentleman's sentiment about doing things in a bipartisan way, but you can't do it in a bipartisan way if they don't come to the floor. if the leader doesn't have 60 votes, then he needs to reach a compromise because we need to get our business done. e passed all of our bills. in re not partisan, i think many ways, but there was a determination not to vote for them because they hadn't reached the caps number. i think that was unfortunate because i think someone who served on the committee for 23 years, mr. speaker, we passed our bills many, many instances, most instances, in a bipartisan
fashion. i yield back to my friend. but i did want to make the comment not be responded to in terms of the senate's refusal, unwillingness to act and do its business and here we are, not a single bill, not one has been passed through the committee. you have the majority of the committee, your party. at least report it out of the committee and work on getting 60 votes. i yield back to my friend. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding back and there were a number of items you brought up and the government shutdown that you referred to last year, because when we were in the majority last year, we actually passed bipartisan bills to fund over 70% of the government prior to october 1. no shutdown. more than 70% of the government that we worked with democrats and president trump to get an
agreement on, including defense, so our men and uniform did not have that uncertainty and had that full year of funding, all of that was worked out and we had a disagreement over the homeland security department because of funding for border security. and the government shutdown was clearly over whether or not we were going to have a secure border and all the things including physical barriers and we resolved it and the president ot $4.5 billion to continue to put that security in place to secure our nation's border. over 70% of the government was fully funded prior to the end of the fiscal year working with republicans and democrats in the house and senate. as you brag about passing over 96% of the bills out of the house, it's got to be noted that you didn't work with republicans to do it. the easy thing to say is we'll
talk amongst ourselves knowing it won't get signed into law. a partisan bill isn't going to get signed into law when you have a president and senate controlled by a different party. the senate works differently from us. we would probably agree on a lot of the differences how the senate operates, about but because of their 60-vote requirement and won't pass a bill unless they have agreements in negotiations. there are senate democrats in your own leadership on the democrat side that are offering up things that everybody knows are poison pills that would not get signed into law and so they are at an impasse. they need to brick the impasse and talk to some of the senate democrats trying to offer up things that will not happen or become law or pass over there. but both sides need to come together. when you pass an ndaa bill and the gentleman from maryland
knows this, the national defense authorization act is a bill republican, democrat-controlled house, no matter who has been in charge, we have always come together, always, every single year that we moved an ndaa, it has been bipartisan. this is the first year you broke from that. you passed a partisan bill on defense knowing it wasn't going to become law and not working with republicans and breaking the tradition. and there are a lot of differences that we have that we need to work through and might get some and might not get others. republicans and democrats have come together and every year including last year. and this year, you did not. you broke that tradition and it's unfortunate. that will never become law. you got something done that will never be signed into law and
broke a tradition that we have had, making sure that we work together to take care of our men and women in uniform in away they deserve in a timely way and i hope we get those things done before october 1. but we know what came out of this house isn't going to be a final product. let's work with members of both parties and the president, who did agree with us on the numbers. we were in agreement. the house, senate and white house finally agreed on the numbers, so it's up to us in the congress to come to an agreement and not just hey, we passed the bill with members of our party, but people have to work together through those differences like we have done in the past. 70% of government was funded last year prior to october 1 and we got agreement on the rest. i yield. , the yer: mr. speaker
defense bill passed this house with almost every republican voting against it. it was a bill that provided $733 billion, a figure that the joint chiefs of staff suggested ublicly. it was a figure that i know personally was a figure that was deemed acceptable by the leadership of the authorizing committee and the appropriating committee on the republican side . the rhetoric was totally partisan.
we have now made a deal and we are now going to save defense because we did $5 billion more. the figure last year, of course, was somewhere around $700 billion, little over. so i will tell my friend, we believe on our side of the aisle that the opposition to the defense bill was totally partisan. no attempt at bipartisanship. and yes, you had some success in getting bipartisan bills through . why? because we were prepared to vote in a bipartisan way. that's the difference. we were prepared to vote in a bipartisan way. we were prepared to accept you were the majority.
mr. speaker, we understand when you're in the minority, you work to get the best object jeggettive you think is possible, and we did that. and the gentleman, mr. speaker, says they got bipartisan bills done because democrats voted for them, including myself. by i know the number was an acceptable number and it was number suggested by the joint chiefs of staff. yet we heard rhetoric after rhetoric of how this was letting down the defense department. so what did they do? 733 ade a deal, $not billion, my 38 what an extraordinary difference and voted against funding the men and women in uniform, funding overseas' contingencies.
so i hope we get off this. if you want to talk bipartisan, act bipartisan, mr. speaker. talk is cheap. and it was clear that democrats, in fact, when they -- when the republicans were in the majority, did, in fact, vote on a number of occasions, not every occasion for bipartisanship. but you can't have bipartisan ship if you don't introduce a bill and, mr. speaker, the republicans have the majority in the united states senate on the committee. they don't need 60% or 2/3, all they need is a simple majority to pass a bill out of committee and as the gentleman pointed out that we did fund some pieces of government before. why?
because we got bipartisan agreement. never seen as i have seen in three decades the senate fail to introduce an appropriation bill prior to the end of july. i hope the senate will move with some degree. i hope we get to agreement on these three bills and hope we will fund government and not have a shutdown like the last time. first time it happened in a new congress when the government was shutdown, all over the wall, which a number of republicans have said it's not a useful thing to do. i won't name them. and re the minority whip republican whip knows a lot of them. some are chairman of committees
over there now. so i'm hopeful we will move together on the appropriation business and do it on time in the people's house and the american people will be served. i yield back. mr. scalise: let's be clear. last year we funded 70% of the government and we didn't play a partisan game with the nation's defense. this bill, the ndaa -- mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. scalise: you made some points that aren't completely accurate. . . the spending level is one part of the debate. but if you put policies in the bill at that level that undermine not only our beliefs of what's best for national defense, but what the president needs to do to be able to do his job and secure our border, you did that in the bill. knowing that that would make it partisan. it was a bipartisan bill and then you added provisions like
things that would undermine the ability to secure america's border in that bill. knowing it was partisan. if you took that out, you knew it would have been a bipartisan bill. but you left it in. that's a pattern we've seen from speaker pelosi's majority this year. we had a bill in the energy and commerce committee to lower drug prices. a major problem in this country. republicans and democrats worked for months and came up with a bill in the committee of jurisdiction to solve the problem and lower drug prices and you know what happened -- it was a unanimous vote. unanimous vote. people looking at congress going, wow, here in the year 2019, on a major issue like lowering drug prices, republicans and democrats came together and figured out a way to lower drug prices and the vote was unanimous. you would figure we would put that on suspension the next day, to pass it out so we could get it signed by the president, as soon as possible. and lower drug prices as soon as possible. and you know what happened? it just happened a few months
ago. as that bill came out of committee, unanimously, to lower drug prices, the speaker made a decision that she was going to put a poison pill in it. after it came out of committee, before it was voted on on the house floor. knowing what that would do. immediately it became a partisan b.a. bill because you put something -- bill because you put something in that you knew would not get republican support. so the bill passed out of the house and you can brag you passed it, but it's not going to go anywhere. it will not become law, but we had a bill that was unanimous out of committee, to lower drug prices. it would be signed into law today if you wouldn't have done that. but you wanted to play political games and it's happened over and over. and so you can talk about what you passed, but when there was a bill that was unanimous out of the committee of jurisdiction, where doctors, people in health care professions, people in business, people on both sides of the aisle that know this issue figured out a way to put all of the differences aside and pass a bill to lower drug
prices, and you had to make that partisan. after it came out of committee unanimously. that's what's been done over and over that undermines the ability for us to get our job done. we could have gotten that done. it could be signed by the president today and we could all hail that as a mainly accomplishment. that's -- major accomplishment. that's just one example. it shouldn't happen that way. we need to move this process along. but we move it along by working together. defense could have been done in a bipartisan way. the things that were added in that you knew would make it partisan shouldn't have been put in that bill. it had never happened that way before, ever. we had always passed a bipartisan ndaa bill through the house. and this is the first year that didn't happen. drug pricing could be solved. but it hasn't happened yet. it should happen. i hope we get it done. but it shouldn't have been done in a partisan way when the committee figured out a way to do it unanimously. i would yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'm not going to get into -- we can discuss all sorts of bills, but we're discussing the
appropriations process. the gentleman expressed how they fundinge to pass 70% of of government because they had the defense bill and the labor-health bill which are the two biggest bills pass and sign by the president. why were they able to do that, mr. speaker? when it requires 60 votes in the senate, they didn't have 60 votes in the senate. because democrats acted in a bipartisan way to affect that end. this year we've had no opportunity to do that. we've had no opportunity to conference on our bills. if you can't get 60 votes, yes, you'd have to compromise. in the senate. you didn't compromise when you were in charge, frankly, on an awful lot of things, closed rules more than any other congress. so we didn't have an opportunity even to amend. but that aside, when you claim
that you passed those bills, you did. and the only reason you could do is -- bills you did, and the only reason you could do it is because the democrats acted in a bipartisan fashion, because you didn't have the votes to pass them on your own. you needed democratic votes. democrats gave you those votes because we knew that in order to get things done, you had to to move a bipartisan fashion. that's the only way you were able to do it. we have not been given the opportunity in the united states senate, because there are no bills yet to consider. except for the last three days. the bills came forward. but for the first nine months of the year, no bills came forward, mr. speaker. not one. i yield back. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would hope those senators on both sides of the aisle, as they're having negotiations and, yeah, they don't have a bill, but they are negotiating, and there are senators that know that some of the provisions that
they're insisting upon are things that will not become law because they undermine our nation's security and yet they keep insisting and so they're not at an agreement. but they need to keep working, just like we need to work in a bipartisan way on those issues. and they will get resolved if we do that. again, i think if you go look at the example of what the house energy and commerce committee did on lowering drugs price -- drug prices, it's a great model to follow. that bill should have been brought to the floor. that bill should not have been changed by the speaker at the last minute to become partisan and now it's not law. i'd like to move on to something that's been troubling that we've been seeing out of the judiciary committee. and that is this drumbeat towards impeachment. it seems like there's an infat situation by this majority -- infat situation -- infatuation by this majority to impeach. there was the mueller report that wept on for years and all of these -- went on for years and all of these members, chairmen of your committees
saying there was evidence that would show the president colluded and then it turned out to be false. there was no collusion. we know that, the report showed that. russia tried to interfere with our elections. when barack obama was president. maybe they should be investigating why he didn't do more to stop the russians from trying to interfere with our elections, but there was no collusion. instead of saying, ok, that's it, move on, as the american people would like to see us do, maybe that committee that has jurisdiction over the border, over immigration law that has serious problems that should be worked out in a bipartisan way could be worked out in a bipartisan way, but it's not because the committee of jurisdiction is infatuated with impeaching the president. the chairman of the committee just said today, this is formal impeachment proceedings. the chairman of the committee said that today. as they're having a hearing on impeaching the president without even evidence to impeach him. there is nothing to impeach him
on. they have articles of impeachment drawn up with blanks, that they're just looking around to fill in on this witch hunt. and they're just going to look and look and look. imagine if somebody said, we're going to target a person and we're going to try to indict him. we don't have anything to indict him on, but we're going to write up an indictment and then look around and hope to find something. and that's what's going on in the judiciary committee. so they had this hearing today. they changed the rules, they had this big drama. the media's all covering it. the chairman says, this is formal impeachment proceedings. and then you look at the rules they brought forward. the rules that they brought forward allow the chairman to do things he can already do. it was a farce. it was a farce to try to appease the radical left base that wants to impeach the president, even though there's nothing to impeach him on. and instead of just giving it up and focus on their job, the things -- focusing on their job, the things they should be focused on, they're just going to keep meandering around on this witch hunt. and i know some are trying to
distance themselves from it. because they know the american people think that it's lunacy to be wasting time trying to impeach the president, even though there's nothing to impeach him on. and just driving around on a witch hunt. i gells the real question is, if the chairman -- i guess the real question is, if the chairman of the committee today said, this is formal impeachment proceedings, he talked about, quote, hopefully by the end of the year they'll vote on articles of impeachment. hopefully by the end of the year. there's nothing to impeach him on. yet they're going to actually go out on a witch hunt saying we're going to look for something and by the end of the year we hope to impeach the president. so i'd ask the gentleman, are y'all bringing articles of impeachment to the floor, is the chairman rightfully going down an impeachment road, and what exactly are those articles? are what are the articles of impeachment if the committee today, your chairman of your committee said, this is formal impeachment proceedings, what exactly is the gentleman planning on impeaching the
president of the united states on? and are you, if he brings those articles of impeachment out of committee, blanks that haven't even been filled in, if they bring them to the floor or if they move them out of committee by the end of the year, as the chairman hopes, is the gentleman prepared to bring that to the floor of the united states house of representatives? i would yield. mr. hoyer: the chairman of the committee spoke about their process. their process has been a fact-finding process. that is our responsibility as a congress. that is his responsibility and the committee's responsibility s a committee. the majority party claims that they have an agenda for the people. and the people believe we ought to exercise our responsibility. that's what the committee's
doing. i do not want to anticipate what the committee's findings will ultimately be, nor what the committee's actions will finally be. we will wait to see. but it is exercising its responsibility as a co-equal branch of government, as provided in the constitution, i'm not going to get into the arguments about, mr. speaker, the premises and the mueller report. other than to say i disagree with the characterization made by the republican whip. that will be for another day. to argue that. but the committee is doing its duty and it will continue to do so and if it decides that that requires further action, my presumption is it will pursue hat as well. i yield back. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i don't think the question's been answered. because the gentleman says the
committee has a responsibility. and i agree. but the committee has a responsibility to be responsible . and it's highly irresponsible, it's reckless and dangerous for the committee to start impeachment proceedings when there's nothing to impeach the president on. we were in the majority when the president of the united states was somebody we had a lot of disagreements with. we never filed articles of impeachment or talked about impeaching the president, because there was nothing to impeach the president on. we never did that. we might have disagreed with him on a lot of things. but there were no committee hearings where the chairman said, quote, this is formal impeachment proceedings, with nothing to impeach the president on. you know, if he does something years down the road, when he gets re-elected, you know, this is not the time to go and try to harass the president when there's nothing that you've found, and you've looked, there's been this witch hunt
going on for years. it didn't yield what you were hoping for it to yield. we all should have applauded when the mueller report said that there was no collusion. but instead of closing it out, they're still, i guess he says by the end of the year he wants to move articles of impeachment. i guess that means they've drafted it up and are hoping to find something to fill in the blanks. but that's irresponsible of that committee, to be moving down a course of impeachment when there's nothing to impeach the president on. and especially when there's so much other work that needs to be done by that committee. we have a border that's out of role control right now -- out of control right now. thousands of people coming across every day. the good thing the president of the united states has worked an agreement with mexico. president was able to achieve that recently where the mexican president said that he's going to start putting thousands of troops at the mexican southern border. and you know what, it's starting to yield results. but we still have human trafficking coming across our
border. we still have drugs coming across our border and there's been requests made to get more funding to secure that border, to put technology in place, to put other tools in place so that our border patrol agents can do their job, securing america's border. and that's the committee of jurisdiction. and they're not bringing bills out of committee to solve that. they're filing articles of impeachment or hoping to move articles of impeachment in the next three months and there's not even anything filled in because there is nothing the president's done to be impeached upon. this is a serious responsibility the committee has and yet they're acting in such a reckless fashion, just to appease the radical left base. who wants to impeach the president, even though there's nothing to itch people hetch -- impeach him on. but everybody else in america says do your job and focus on the things that are in front of you and drop this daily harassment and drumbeat of impeachment and witch hunts. it's time to move on and do the work of the committee. stead of focusing on
impeaching a president even though there's nothing to impeach him on. if there's something, show us what it is. but to recklessly talk in an open hearing that they're going to impeach the president and they're going to move articles of impeachment to this house floor by the end of this year? on what? this has to end. we've got to focus on the things that actually need to be fixed by that committee and this congress and drop this witch hunt. and, look, at some point your side is going to have to figure out which way they want to go. because some people in your radical base might want to impeach no matter what, but everybody else knows the wrong thing to do. everybody else knows it's irresponsible for that committee to act that way. hope that you make the right decision and say we are going to move forward on the things that need to be addressed by the committee. if there is something that comes up, we'll look at it. there isn't anything.
to say they are going to file it even if there is nothing, that is dangerous, reckless and irresponsible. i would yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i don't want to prolong this bate, but i do not the premiseses articulated by the whip to stand unobjected to. in my view, mr. speaker, the eller report is replete with instances of cooperation by members of the trump team with the russians, page after page fter page. of collusion. collusion is not a legal deficient situation. conspiracy is the legal definition and mr. mueller said
we didn't look at collusion because it was not a legal premise. and, in fact, mr. mueller made it very clear that the reason they didn't find criminal wrongdoing was because they believed under justice department rules a president cannot be indicted during the course of his term. . ey did not absolve him and so whether it was , using a n of justice foreign government who is essentially not our ally, not putin nd, meeting with secretly and not allowing the american people or congress to know what was said. my friend's premise that there .s no smoke, no fire is wrong
and very frankly as someone who has served here a long time and who has seen of the most irresponsible attacks on the president during the obama administration, hearing over and er and over again, a tragedy in benghazi. seven hearings all concluded nothing there. so they had an eighth hearing. talks about the judiciary. eight hearings on benghazi. four lives lost tragically. with an attempt over and over and over again to be made a political issue. the eighth committee found nothing there either. so when i hear this ringing of hands, mr. speaker, i'm not
impressed. i have been here a long time. i have seen irresponsible action. and the american people have judiciary so the committee is doing what it is pledged to do when they all raise their hands to defend and support the constitution of the united states of america. the president would like us to .hink everything is fake news but the witch hunt. poor me. i'm the victim of all these people. when daily, the president says things that are demon strably
not true. so, mr. speaker, the judiciary committee will continue to pursue its duties as it needs to do. i yield back. mr. scalise: i tank the gentleman for yielding. if you talk about benghazi, there are a lot of serious questions that have not been answered yet. mr. hoyer: eight hearings, all republican-led. and all found nothing there. all found nothing there, mr. speaker. mr. scalise: fast and furious, a lot of questions raised. there were multiple times where the president took action where ultimately he was found to be out of compliance. we never moved articles of impeachment for that, that doesn't high crimes and misdemeanor. it turned out we were right. th benghazi, those questions
haven't raised about why they did. mr. hoyer: eight hearings found nothing there. all led by republicans. mr. scalise: americans died when it was known that it was dangerous where they were. why weren't planes circled. you could have flown jets over there in 15 minutes to scare away people that were attacking that embassy and killing americans and we looked into it. mr. hoyer: eight times you looked into it. mr. scalise: and maybe it should have been more as to why those americans died so it doesn't happen again, things like that that shouldn't have happened. we should find out why, what went wrong. why did people miss signs and let those people die that shouldn't have died. yes, those hearings were warranted. we never filed articles of
impeachment. see if we can find something. and if we don't find something, we're still going to do it. that's reckless. they -- this that is reckless. we took an oath to protect this country. we have a border that is not secure and thousands of people who are bringing drugs, trafficking humans, young kids being abused and that's the committee of jurisdiction and they are ignoring it and haven't produced a single bill to go and solve that problem. are they ok with what's going on at the border and don't think that legislation is warranted to address it, to close the asylum loopholes that everybody knows is a magnet. coming through other countries who are offering them asylum, but we don't want to fix that problem because the committee is focused on impeachment. the american people are watching, too, and the american people are tired of those kinds
of games every single day focusing their energies and taxpayer dollars on attacking the president, his family members and cabinet members. people who did business with him 20 years are getting subpoenaed. they want to harris the president because they don't lying the fact that he was dualy elected in 2016. you know what? the american people did elect him president and he is doing his job and carrying out his mission. shame on the committee continuing to go after something whether it is there or not. every prosecutor knows you don't try to go find something on somebody, you should follow the facts. if the facts lead you to a dead end, then you end. they want to keep doing it and abusing their power. there is accountability that happens, too. and that's why we have elections. so if that's what the committee wants to do and if that's what
the leadership of this house ,emocrat conference wants to do people are watching. i want to talk about one final thing and that is usmca, an opportunity to get something done for this country. i had a meeting with ambassador lighthizer who is meeting with speaker pelosi and her team. few weeks ago, the speaker through her trade working group n usmca sent a letter to ambassador lighthizer identifying areas they would like addressed in the usmca trade agreement and i understand that ambassador lighthizer sent a reply including things he has worked with the dem cat majority on to try to address some of those issues and ultimately get this done. and i say this in the most
sincere way, i do think usmca is something we can do together and get an agreement with our friends from the north and south, mexico and canada to agree to make nafta work better or america workers and dairy farmers, better working conditions. we want to make sure there is enforcement and that is putting belt and suspenders. but every day we wait more jobs we are missing out on creating for our economy. i know that there is still the opportunity to get this done maybe in the next few weeks. we have a whip team that has been put in place specifically for usmca and democrats have been working with as well with ambassador lighthizer to get this done and i ask the gentleman if he has any idea of where that process is on your side, if there is any idea of a
time line to finally bring this to the floor and pass this important agreement that would send a message from canada and mexico, but our friends around the world, squap and, who want to get trade agreements with america that this is holding back because they want to see if this can get done and shift our focus to china and all the countries around the world that want china to comply with rules that everybody else has to comply with, to get these tariff fights over so we can have a stronger economy. i would yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we have said all along we want to get to yes on usmca. we think it is an improvement over nafta, which needs improving. the speaker and i were here when we voted on nafta and both voted for it.
there were some promises made inside agreements that the rights of workers, the . vironment would be protected unfortunately that did not turn out to be true. so that in adopting a change to fasta, we want to make sure that the promises made in the agreement are promises that can be enforced. the u.s. chamber of commerce has often said, quote the commitments in the trade pakistan aren't -- pact aren't worth the paper they are written on if they can't be enforced. that is the posture of myself and so many others that enforcement is critical. unfortunately the nafta enforcement mechanisms has been a failure. 25 years as i'm sure the whip knows, the u.s. has taken only
one successful enforcement action under the nafta dispute resolution procedure and none in he past 20 years, not a single enforcement has been -- has prevailed. we have been unable to complete its labor provisions. we want to get to yes. i want to say that mr. lighthizer, ambassador lighthizer is somebody we respect and operating in good faith and we think he is a positive -- someone we can work with and have been working with. we sent a letter six weeks ago and as the gentleman pointed out, we got an answer yesterday. taking time for our task force to get answers to questions and move forward to ensure that the matters included in the agreement become reality,
not simply words on paper. that is important for workers, it's important for our environment, very frankly also as well in terms of trying to contain drug prices here and around the world. the gentleman talked about prescription drugs. that is one of the items ta is still in dispute. we want to get to yes. we think this is an improvement on what exists and therefore i'm hopeful we will get to an agreement. we believe it will require that the agreement be open and that enforcement be included so as the chamber said it can really be enforced. and if that happens, i'm hopeful we can pass that agreement with the agreement of our friends in labor, with our friends at the chamber of commerce and in a bipartisan way on this floor.
let's hope that happens. but we have made it very, very clear that if it's just words on paper and not enforceable, it's not a good agreement for america or america's workers. i hope we can move forward and achieve an agreement on this issue so that we can pass it. . i yield back. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman and i share the gentleman's optimism about our ability to get this done, to get to yes. with the provisions that are already in place on enforcement, if there's a way to make them stronger, i know that that's something that ambassador lighthizer has been working with your team on. while the letter was sent six weeks ago, ambassador lighthizer went to work right away, sitting down with folks on both sides, including democrat leadership in the house to address those as best as both sides could get agreement. that's where the letter i think finally lays out the remedies to
those issues that were brought up and it's my hope that as that's reviewed, we get to a place where we can find agreement, then get it passed. mexico's already passed it. canada's waiting on us. and i think we would send a strong signal to the world that not only is america the best place to do business with the strongest economy in the world, but we're also able to reach better trade deals, both for americans and for our friends and there's a lot more folks in line waiting for us to be a part of those kind of deals too. look forward to the ability to keep working on that. i would love the ability to work with the gentleman as the republican whip on the leader laying out a floor schedule for when that comes and we can celebrate something big for this country. and the workers of america. and with that, i thank the gentleman for his work and for this discourse and would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman yields back the balance of his time. and for other purposes the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? -- for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow, and further when the house adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet on tuesday, september it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed, s. 178, the user human rights policy act of 2019, in which concurrence of the house s requested.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the record and to include therein extraneous material notwithstanding the fact that it exceeds two pages and is estimated by the director of the government printing office -- publishing office, excuse me, to the cost of $2,433.98. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. lee: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> 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 gentleman is recognized for one minute.
>> elk lodge in greater cape may, south jersey, recently won first place in division iv e.n.f. chairman's challenge at the national convention. it was also named number one in he entire state of new jersey. the chief e.n.f. person is truly a dedicated member whose leadership has helped make this elks lodge the very best of its kind. mr. van drew: elks lodge helps our community by offering programs to keep children healthy and to keep them drug-free. they also meet the needs of veterans and help improve the quality of their life. work that is so much needed in today's times. in addition to these services, elk's lodge have a generous charitable foundation that gives millions of dollars in scholarships each year to help shape the future of the
community of our children. i feel very lucky to have such a well-run community center as a place for people to come to gather, to grow closer in our beautiful district. to all of the members and staff of elk's lodge 2839, congratulations on your awards. and thank you for all you bring to our community. south jersey is proud of you. new jersey is proud of you. and the united states of america is proud of you. god bless you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: mr. speaker, today i rise to celebrate the life of mark abristo whose unyielding commitment to advancing disability rights improved the lives of millions. as the founder of access living
and a leader of the national council on disability, the national council on independent living, and the united states international council on disabilities, mark fought passionately to em-- ensure people with disabilities have the same rights as their able-bodied peers, including the right to live independently in the community. she was a crusader for the americans with disabilities act. in her steadfast advocacy was instrumental in the passage of this landmark civil rights legislation. her work tearing down barriers cleared the way for people with disabilities to pursue their own dreams, which ultimately also helped me realize my dream of bng b.c.s.ing a united states congressman -- of becoming a united states congressman. marka's legacy is the continued continued the lives of improve of the lives of people with disabilities. she made a difference. in my -- and my condolences go out to her entire family and friends. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a message.
the clerk: to the congress of the united states. pursuant to 202-d of the national emergencies act provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days before the anniversary date of its declaration, the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. consistent with this provision, i have sent to the federal register the enclosed notice stating that the emergency declared in proclamation 7463 of september 14, 2001, national emergency by reason of certain terrorist attacks, is to continue in effect beyond september 14, 2019. the threat of terrorism that resulted in the declaration of a national emergency on september 14, 2001, continues. the authorities that have been invoked under that declaration of a national emergency continue to be critical to the ability of the armed forces of the united states to perform essential missions in the united states and around the world to address
the continuing threat of terrorism. for these reasons, i have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect the national emergency declared on september 14, 2001, in response to certain terrorist attacks. signed, donald j. trump, the white house, september 12, 2019. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2019, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. a lot going on today. a lot going on this week. i wish i could say it was all good. ut we spent until 10:00 p.m.
the night before last working on bills that would find ways to take people's guns away and unfortunately not give them the kind of drew process that we think -- due process that we think the constitution affords people. and during my days as prosecutor and a felony judge, thousands of criminal cases went through my court, i don't remember anywhere a criminal defendant bought hits gun -- his gun at a sporting goods store, gun store, applied or a gun and -- that's not the way criminals work. and so i didn't see anything in our hours and hours and hours of
committee hearings, trying to amend with good amendments bad bills that the majority didn't allow to be passed, we thought they might be joining us on some. they said they would look at some. but basically defeated every amendment. but today we met in judiciary committee at 8:00 a.m. to take a what semi, sort of, kind of bit of an impeachment resolution . we had amendments that would have made a bad resolution a little better. still not good. hard time -- figuring out on the republican side, you know, what is this? it sounds like in texas we would
would say, we're fixing to do -- we would say, we're fixing to do something. the love times people say i'm fixing to do that -- a lot of times people say, i'm fixing to do that, but it means it may get put a off -- put off and i may not really be serious because if i was really serious, i'd do it right now. but this resolution, and i have it here, the first paragraph talks about the committee making discovery requests, but the second paragraph is really the ne that deals with allegations that would be an impeachable offense or offenses. at least it's supposed to. and so it says, whereas special counsel robert mueller's report released on april 18, 2019, found that the russian
government interfered in the 2016 election in sweeping and systemic fashion -- systematic fashion, ok. but the mueller report made ery, very clear, and those who investigated i thought made it very clear there was no collusion, or to use the legal term, conspiracy, by anyone in the trump campaign with the russian government. none. that part didn't happen. even though we have networks like cnn and msnbc, i don't know who all else, but for two or three years they've talked about the crimes of this president and
their collusion with russia. people that have law degrees talked about collusion between the trump campaign and russia, that immediately sent up red flags with me because there is -- that's not a collusion -- collusion is not a legal term that's used in talking about crimes. it's conspiracy. and so it immediately begins to raise questions or they -- questions, are they really serious about some type of crime? because if they were, they would use words that are used in criminal terminology. t here, this is a completely deceptive allegation when it comes to president trump. because they take this initial
allegation and say, yeah, mueller found that the russians really were trying to interfere in our 2016 election. ok, but it didn't involve anybody in the trump campaign. that was clear. so they tried to brush over that and make it sound like, yeah, even though there was nobody -- president trump or the trump campaign that were involved at all, but we're going to kind of word this, put it in the same sentence so that it kind of sounds like, yeah, the president was involved with russia. because then it jumps into another gear, it says that there were at least 10 separate episodes of president trump using his official powers to, and here's the word, thwart or
attempt to thwart the special counsel's investigation. very, very so troubling language, for those of us that have dealt with legal terminology in criminal cases. i don't know of anybody that's dealt with criminal cases, i didn't hear from anybody on the committee, that has ever heard a crime involving thwarting. we're familiar with obstruction of justice. but these are the kind of games you play with words when you know, eh, there's no evidence a crime was commit bud maybe if we use different terminology, it'll sound like some kind of bad
crime was committed and clearly we're not going to be able to remove a president from office with the senate understanding that even the mueller report, even the mueller special counsel team that had all these people that hated donald trump, they still couldn't find anything that would be indictable. some say, well, but there was obstruction of justice. we even had one, i would say, incompetent, law professor, come before our committee and say she could guarantee that she could get a conviction and win on appeal. i tried enough cases in state and federal court and in the army that i know, and i've told people that were looking for
lawyers, my days as a judge, i couldn't recommend a lawyer, but i would warn people, you ever hear a lawyer who tries cases who says they can guarantee you then that trial, lawyer is either totally competent or is one of the bigger liars in the legal profession. i don't know which one this professor was. i got the impression she just really didn't know what she was talking about because nobody makes that kind of -- oh, yeah, i can guarantee i can win this case at trial and on appeal. that's not a good lawyer. that's somebody that doesn't the know what they're talking about. but especially when you look, at we have found now after
thousands and thousands of interviews, subpoenas, documents, millions of documents there was no crime. and the reason there was no obstruction of justice by president trump or anybody that was assisting him is because the president made very, very clear as soon as he heard about some collusion conspiracy, whatever you want to call it, with russia, rig the election, he knew he never co-lewded.he knew he never conspire -- he never colluded, he knew he never conspired nor did anyone in his campaign conspire with russia to affect the election. that never happen and he knew
it. but he could see from what these 17 or so people in the special counsel team were trying to do, they were trying to frame him. and this guy that was dishonored d was no longer respected by mi-6, that he used to work for in england and there was information that he was discredited, not just his information but he had been was edited, but that's who hired by fusion g.p.s., that was hired apparently by the clinton campaign and the democratic national committee, try to dredge up dirt on candidate donald trump. so that they could rig the election against donald trump. and we've got to the bottom of it, almost, and we know that christopher steele is the one
that didn't just collude, he conspired with people in russia who he ultimately had to admit, quite possible they could have been working for vladimir putin. so christopher steele, it appears most likely he was the e that was conspiring with people from russia. sounds like putin's agents. to try to destroy donald trump. and there's been noise made about oh, gee, russia really wanted donald trump to win. that's not the way vladimir putin thinks. he wants the old soviet empire back. really bugs me when educated people say, you know, he's such a complicated guy. he isn't. he's one of the most easily discernible people in the world. he wants the old empire back. he's a former k.g.b. guy.
he will do whatever it takes to try to get back. i don't think he cared so much who won the election. he wanted to divide america and lo and behold he was able to see g.p.s., christopher steele, the clinton campaign, d.n.c., they were able to take all this information that was ,othing but lies in the dossier they've even given dossier a bad name, and divide america. and at least one political party in america has been totally willing to be complicit to help divide america over a bunch of lies in a dossier that was created as political fodder when it became very clear, very quickly to those who had paid for the dossier that it was not
only not verifiable, the person that gathered the information didn't really know the people, the russians, that gave him the lies about donald trump, and fisa t taken before a court. to get a warrant to spy on a campaign. to wit, the trump campaign. that's scary stuff. hen one administration can use the powers of the office of president, the intel community, the f.b.i., department of powers tose all those destroy another campaign and as newt gingrich has pointed out,
if ms. clinton had won we would never have known how corrupt and weaponized the d.o.j., f.b.i. had become. and i know there's some of my friends here in congress, on our side of the aisle, they think david horowitz is doing a good job. because look at all the evidence of wrongdoing, bias, all this that he's found. you look at the most recent report. just like the first one. first report. horowitz found -- he was a good obama appointee as inspector general there at the department of justice. good democrat. good appointee. so he does his digging, finds hundreds of pages of the most outrageous political bias, actually, personal hatred, for donald trump and absolute love
and affection for candidate hillary clinton. and so much bias, overwhelming. and every conclusion that these ased, prejudiced, bigotted investigationors had was 100% consistent with all of their conclusions. that speaks for itself. w if a third, half, of their conclusions had gone against their bias and prejudice, bigotry, then you would say well, you know, maybe it really didn't affect the outcomes of their investigations. but when every conclusion is consistent with the bias and prejudice, even though it's clear, like in the case of the investigation into the clinton
instruction and paige -- you had strzok and paige examining emails, making the call on whether document were classified, knowing full well if they said something was classified that hillary clinton was being set up legitimately to be indicted and convicted. so they wanted hillary clinton to win. they wanted to do whatever they could to stop donald trump from winning. and if he didn't win, as they said, they needed an insurance policy just in case he won. and horowitz did a grave injustice within the justice department. he said there's no indication that all that bias had anything to do with the outcomes of the cases.
that's just garbage. he was being disingenuous. he wasn't doing his job. and his conclusions. and i know that a lot of republicans said yeah, yeah, but boy, when he investigated, when that report comes out on comey it's going to end up sending him to prison. leak information that he should not. he did keep documents that he was not permitted to keep. he secreted them, kept them, after he had left government service. he's not allowed to do that. and the biggest thing about those and whether or not they were felonies that would put him in jail would be, was this information classified? at what level? and we find out, you know, page one and two of the horowitz i.g.
report, the f.b.i. investigated, the f.b.i. determined that this wasn't classified. the f.b.i. this and that. you have to wait 40 pages to see who he means by the f.b.i. it turns out the two most important people, because they had the most experience in analyzing documents to determine the classification level, it was the couple named peter strzok and lisa paige. and he has the gall, horowitz does, to even point out, to try to get more credibility, to strzok and paige's work on deciding whether comey should go to prison because they were classified at a high level, he said oh, but they had more experience because they did all this work on the clinton email, determining whether those were
classified or not. for heaven's sake. somebody needs to wake up. david horowitz does not need to be doing the investigation. maybe let him do the investigation but he doesn't eed to be doing the reports. a lot of places, people would ' em doesn't know sic from come here when it comes to this. outrageous. he justifies not having them re-examined because time was of the essence two years ago in 2017. back before
but not to worry because a guy named bill frestep was going to rubber stamp whatever strzok and paige decided on classification. there was another unit chief, didn't give us that name that tells you something right there. but frestep was supposed to have the final decision, rubber stamp whatever strzok and paige decided, when they knew full well if they classified things at a certain level it meant jim comey was going to prison. so they did comey a favor. horowitz, he didn't want to have them re-reviewed for proper classification away from the bias of strzok and paige. there were reports of him going to london, trying to help out steele's credibility. so horowitz said time was of the essence, so nobody reconsidered the classified -- classification that the bigotted, biased, prejudice of paige and strzok would not be determinative.
and i know people, republicans, many of them, are saying well, look, there's no question that mccabe lied, perjured. he should end up going to prison. i'm telling you, as a history buff, historian if you would, it's true. history is often the bhest end -- the best indicator of what someone will do in the future. the indications are that obama's i.g. horowitz will find some terrible things but he will do it in such a way that he'll give not only comey now and strzok and paige a get out of jail free pass but he'll do that with mccabe, he'll do that with anybody else he's investigating because that'sst that's -- because that's his hisry. he knows what side of his bread
is buttered, who is doing the buttering, who got him in the position he's in. so we end up now being told, well, this isn't a formal impeachment hearing, an investigation we started today. in judiciary. but then toward the end of our hearing, we heard from two different democrats that wanted to go on record and make it very, very clear that this was an impeachment hearing, it was an impeachment investigation, and that's what it is. it's not just a resolution for investigative procedures, as it says here on the resolution. but there was so much fraud involved in this case, and i'm not talking about from anybody with the trump campaign, i'm talking about a guy like james
comey that should have known better, and he swore, and apparently verified, the application, affidavit information to go before the fisa court so he could get a warrant to spy on the trump campaign, all while he was lying to the president about not -- him not being under investigation. and also trying to set the president up by doing little memos. and i hope and pray one of the things that comes out of all this department of justice and a practicel abuse is . e f.b.i.'s had for years the section 302, where f.b.i. agents, after they do an interview, they sit down and type up their own version of what they think or what they recall a witness said.
and most of the ones i've seen over the years in my different roles in the justice system appear to be very accurate. every s a problem when other local and state law enforcement entity i'm aware of, when they want credibility for a statement, they record it. and i saw it from juries in my court, that, look, you're telling us this is what the defendant said. why didn't you record it so we could see for ourselves? we could hear for ourselves. we could see the body language. and that's why local governments all over the country have come up with billions of dollars altogether so they can make sure that they get video and audio of someone being questioned, so
there's no question what they say. but not at the f.b.i. oh, no. no. and will talk to a witness then they write up their own version of what's said. and thankfully most of them do a great job. ut it also allows unscrupulous f.b.i. or d.o.j. officials, as we've now seen existed under the obama justice department, it llows them to twist the f.b.i. or the d.o.j.'s version of what a witness says and use that as they have thousands and thousands -- i don't know how many times, to convict people. saying, this is what he said, because i wrote it down in my own notes after i did the interview. really? well, let's see the video. let's hear the audio. oh, well we don't do that the at
the f.b.i. we only write down our vegs -- do that at the f.b.i. we only write down our version of what was said. because we would rather you hear our version and not the defendant's version of what he said, because we get more credibility than any defendant. at least they used -- that used to be the way it was. but i hope one of the things that will come out of all of this is we'll be able, in order for the f.b.i. to get back to credibility they used to have as the greatest law enforcement agency in the world, they're going to need to start doing audio and video so that we can see what a witness said, hear what they said for ourselves. and so that juries can hear that and judges can see and hear that. but we don't have that here. it's people like the biased strzok, paige who hated trump, love hillary clinton. you know, when you talk about obstruction of justice, i don't know how you can be more
obstructive than to get a bpoena for emails and then take all of the stuff off so nobody can ever see them, and then beat up with hammers cell phones, whatever you need to, to destroy the evidence. that would seem to be a classic case of obstruction. but fortunately for people involved with hillary clinton, it was strzok and paige on the job. so they didn't see anything, didn't hear anything that might resemble something that should be prosecuted. but we end up today with this resolution that the majority passed without allowing any amendments. and they used this word, thwart. used his resident
official powers to in this water or attempt to this -- to thwart or attempt to thwart. nobody's ever been convicted of thwarting. just can imagine, say the democrats got exactly what they wanted and they were able to impeach or charge president an officialhwarting investigation, goes to the senate, they get what they want, president trump is removed. years down the road, you used to be president. you were removed, what were you removed for? well, i was apparently a thwarter. i've been branded a thwarter. maybe we ought to put a t on their head. yeah so everybody knows. here comes a thwarter. the only thing is, he was thwarting, if at all, massive injustice from the justice
department. he knew he had not conspired with anybody in russia, nor had anybody in his campaign. and evidence has borne that out. even mueller, weissmann, the people that hated the president had to come around to say, yeah, ok, we can't find any evidence of them conspiring with russia. but nonetheless, we still have to go through this hearing today and i'm sure there will be other hearings. but the truth is, president donald trump, candidate, well, president trump never obstructed or thwarted justice. he knew if there was true justice, this effort to frame him for colluding with the russians would be found false. and would be found to be a frame-up job. he wanted justice.
you can never convict someone of obstructing justice when all they did was what they could to ensure that an injustice did not occur. they were seeking justice to make sure there wasn't a successful frame-up. that's not obstructing or thwarting justice. that's seeking justice. but there certainly were people inside the d.o.j. who were doing what they could to inflict an injustice on president trump. so here we go. to this impeachment exercise that started today. i think about those in england that would say, god save the queen, god save the king. god save this republic.
we're in a lot of trouble. when we have caught the justice department red-handed, trying to impose a massive injustice, conspiring to do so, even having who ing attorney general we found out from the emails this week, and some of us knew this, because we knew from other information that rosenstein, acting attorney general, did not just once cesar cass particularly, i'll wear a wire. you know, i can get into the white house. i'll wear a wire, record the president. then they can try to remove him under the 25th amendment for not being competent. they formulated a response to act like he was being sarcastic,
when everybody there knew he was not being sarcastic. because apparently from what i understood the reason he brought that up is because others there in the meeting were mad at him, they said, you've been helping the president instead of helping us get the president. you know, you wrote that memo that gave him a basis to fire comey. whose side are you on? and that's the kind of context where rosenstein says, look, i'll wear a wire if you want. he wanted to show that he was an obama team player. a sali yates -- sally yates team player. a loretta lynch team player. he was not a trump team player. i'll even wear a wire, go in. that wasn't the only place he brought it up. he brought it up at another meeting such that mccabe went back and told people, you know, rosenstein brought it up again. he still said he's willing to wear a wire. that's because rosenstein was trying to convince him he was a gd team player.
-- he was a good team player. and he would go set up and try to frame the president. to help remove him from office. but that's not all that's gone on this week. we had the vote today. the house has moved to or voted to eliminate the tiny, tiny little part of anwr where jimmy carter said that drilling would be allowed. this is jimmy carter that says everybody's supposed to wear a cardigan and turn your temperature in winter way down, wear a sweater. you know, shiver a little bit, it's ok. we're going to save energy. but even he said, you're right, that part of anwr, that tiny, tiny little part of that huge area, nothing's there, it's not going to affect any wildlife really, so that can be an area
that can be drilled. and then since then, democrats have done all they could to put it off limits. and sometimes you see these pictures of all this wildlife, this beautiful area, pristine. well, if that's what you see, that isn't a part of anwr where drilling would be allowed. and so we get a little .erspective on the size there's another poster up here somewhere. it has how big a map, how big alaska is. and then it has the size of anwr . and then there's a red dot that you can't see more than a few feet away that is where the tiny little part comparatively, where drilling would be allowed. and, you know, there are people re in this body that are
absolutely wonderful people. friends on both sides of the aisle. and there are some, my democratic friends, i know they would never lie to me. they're just honest people. we just have disagreements on things. and one of the most honorable eople i ever knew in this body was actually chairman of the energy and commerce committee, back initially when democrats took the majority in january of 2007. and he wanted socialized medicine. we disagree on that. but i knew the man's heart. he wanted to help poor people. that's why he didn't want to pass the cap and trade bill. because he knew it would cause the price of energy to
skyrocket. and he knew it was a tough, tough blow to the nation's poor, to our senior citizens on medicare, but especially on social security, fixed income. you start skyrocketing the price of energy to those folks, it's evastating. and that's why he did not want to pass the cap and trade bill. he wanted to do everything he could to help poor people. that was his nature. but he knew, you start doing this kind of stuff, you know, for the rich, energy prices, gasoline, electricity, propane, those things going up, that's an inconvenience. but those on fixed income, it's absolutely devastating. and so as america, under the
trump administration, has been allowed to gather up more of our energy sources, the economy gets better. more people working now than ever, minorities working at the highest -- unemployment the lowest it's ever been for minorities. since they started recording those numbers. i mean it's fantastic. and energy prices have come down a little. it's been stabilized. because we're finding so much of our own energy and using it. we disagree about a lot of things on both sides of the aisle, i don't know anybody that serves in this body on either side of the aisle that doesn't want a clean environment. but those that know our history of the world know, you have a struggling economy, the number
one thing that suffers, besides the people, is the environment. , as ina, that government ig, totalitarian as it can be, they know if people get laid off and are not working, they could have another revolution. and they don't want that. they're more concerned about people being busy and working and having money than they are about the environment. in india, they're scared to death of people, too many people, not being able to work or have income. so we get all of this pollution from the other side of the rld, heard today that 85%, somebody said, of the pollution in the atmosphere is -- that we
have in our atmosphere is coming from these other countries. when those countries' economies are struggling, there's more pollution. that's generally the way it works. because you just can't afford to help clean up the environment like we are and have been in the united states. we need a vibrant economy to continue to clean up our environment. we got lakes that were dead. now brimming with activity and wildlife. these are good things. texas, seems like our air gets cleaner every year. a i'd ask my staff to find picture of, the best they could, that would reflect what we're talking about, and anwr, in that tiny, well, relatively speaking tiny area of anwr where drilling would be allowed, you don't see don't see from
-- this is from google maps, it's right near -- this isn't actually the area but it looks just like most of the area where drilling would be allowed. time to time there'll be a wildlife cross this area but -- and the area where drilling would be allowed, but they can't stay because they can't live there in those areas. there's just not enough to sustain life there. as jimmy carter figured out, it's an ideal place to drill. that's why they designated it for that. but we have been waiting over 40 years to use that. as a place to even further reduce our cost of energy. which will also allow us to export energy. which means european countries don't have to be blackmailed or extorted by russia. i mean, there's one country that hopes the democrats are very, very successful -- well, of course the opec nation bus
russia is probably the most hopeful that the democrats are successful in preventing us from getting the energy that we've been blessed with in this area where you don't have caribou or things, wildlife, like you do in other parts of anwr. they don't want us to drill. they know we'll be able to get energy to europe and we won't blackmail europe, we won't extort europe, the way that tin often has countries that he supplies natural gas to. we export that, we can help give more freedom to the world we feel can bring down our own prices even further. why wouldn't we do that? this picture was near the proposed exploration area. it's from google maps. taken on dalton highway just south of prudho ebay, facing
east toward the coastal area of alaska national wildlife refuge and so it's not right in the efuge but it's -- of prudhoe bay, facing wiese toward the coastal area of alaska national wildlife refuge and so it's not right in the refuge but near it. this is from the images we have been seeing around here about the mountains and rain bes and all the herds of animals. this is much more representative than any of those type pictures. i do want to touch on one more thing about the russians meddling in our election. and sean hannity had a great article a year and a half ago, february of 2018, and in there, he quotes from president obama. president obama said there is no serious person out there who
would suggest somehow that you could even -- you could even rig america's elections. there's no evidence that that's happened in the past. or that there are instances in which that will happen this time. and that was at the height of the 2016 election. and so it goes on to say, i invite mr. trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes. so this was president obama. he did nothing and it turns out they knew that the russians were trying to meddle in our elections. so why wouldn't obama try to stop the russians from meddling in our elections? he did nothing. i mean there's speculation, well, he knew that hillary clinton was going to win and he was afraid if they started admitting what they knew was true that russia was trying to meddle in our elections, and hillary clinton won, it might make her victory look suspect.
if they talked about the effort they knew russia was engaged in to affect our election. but the truth is, putin wants to divide america as much as he can. divide and conquer is what he hopes to do. and he's been successful. the russians, the russians that they had that gave the lies to christopher steele, the discredited former mi-6 guy, that he provided to fusion g.p.s., that apparently the clinton campaign and the d.n.c. have hired, it's done what they wanted. it's done what putin wanted. it has adversely affected the president of the united states. it's divided our country. it has pitted family against family. i mean, someone once said the
last phase of a civil war involves guns. we've been in a nonfirearm civil war for a while now. nd this mueller investigation, the whole russia dossier, the lies in there about candidate, now president, trump. the russians, just like putin wanted, they have been successful in dividing this country. nd as of yesterday, 9/11, we really -- we candice agree. john dingell and i did. but i loved the guy. he was a brilliant, caring, honorable man of integrity. and we have those on both sides of the aisle. got some you got to be careful on both sides. but there are people on both
sides of the aisle that can work together. because they're honest, honorable people. disagree when we need to. , before we d to finish the week here, we have seen in the news afghanistan, peace talks with the taliban broke down. taliban continue to kill americans. and they're going to continue to kill americans. it's who they are. it's what they are. and in my trips to afghanistan and other places, i made friends of some of those muslims who were part afghan, muslims who were part of the northern alliance. it's no longer called the northern alliance. but these were muslim friends of the united states, they just wanted freedom.
they're muslim bus they did not want ruthless totalitarians like the taliban running their country. and the enemy of our enemy was people we could work with. and unfortunately, our intelligence was not sophisticated enough, plugged in enough, so that the day or so ahmad shah ma en pseudo, sometimes called -- masoud, sometimes called the lion of panjeer because he was such a hero, he was a great warrior, soldier, great politician, bloved in afghanistan and the taliban wanted to kill him. but he had good security. but the taliban, they may be crazy. they may be haters. want to kill all americans.
but they're not stupid. at all. they knew if the united states figured out that the 9/11 attack had originated in afghanistan with al qaeda and the taliban, that the united states would go to afghanistan and we'd look for an afghan leader that the people would rally behind who could lead the country to destroy the taliban. and they knew that would most likely be the lion of pan jeer, the hero of the afghan victory massoud.ia, ahmed shah so a day or so before 9/11, thinks after around 36 hours or so before, they had gotten massoud to agree to an interview. his security people checked out
the reporter. known reporter. cameraman there let them in. en they start the interview, the cameraman blows up the bomb in his camera and kills massoud. if our intelligence people had been on top of their game they would have known something was about to happen. something's about to happen, for them to kill massoud now, national hero. i think of him as a friend. i hope he thinks the same way. he fought with and under his older brother and he -- his brother used him as a diplomat. but he was one of many of the northern alliance. movie "12 strong" shows general dustin that we got after 9/11,
beginning around october, got other tribal groups to agree to ight with him as the leader. imams weren't happy but agree wesmed provided air cover. we provided weapons for them. we had 300 or so as i understood it. special ops. special forces. c.i.a. in there. only our guys could call down bombs and direct them at specific targets. and we -- the weapons we provided, the -- the weapons we provide the afghans, the bomb support, b-52, 40,000 or so feet up, the northern alliance, our afghan, muslim allies, they destroyed the organized taliban, you know, within, some say, maybe it was march, but
february, march, of 2002, without a single american casualty we defeated the taliban. i think it was a mistake. we were considered heroes. we came in, we helped get rid of the taliban that a majority of afghanistan did not want running the country. and then we came in and started what appeared to be occupying. and that probably could have been ok if we could have kept them -- helped them get a new government going and then get out. condoleezza rice, as i heard from others, relied on recommendations to use a guy named al-assad. . you can't be taliban and not be
understand it. anyway, relied heavily on him. guy that was -- said he was part of the inner circle. recommendation is -- the decision, what kind of government are we going to give destroyed thew we taliban? unfortunately, that shouldn't decision, but the this is at said, look, a tribal country, nothing would than to area better have strong local and state or governments, and that's a federalist society where the government's kind of an umbrella, but the real power's n the provinces and the local government. did.s not what we the wrong people were listened a constitutioned hrough that gives the power to
the president, almost make him a dictator. elected in t is fghanistan, but then he appoints the governors. he appoints the mayors. appoints the police chief. and st cut the local folks the province folks out of governing themselves. my friend, massoud, said, you now, look, we need -- we know you're going to end up having to someday, so, please, help us get an amendment to our that allows each province to elect its own city, townallows each to elect their own mayor. let us pick our own police somebody that karzai ghani -- is president --
but let us pick our own leaders. thought, was , i very sound. e said, when america leaves afghanistan with this strong central government where the power, all s all they got to do is either knock off or corrupt the president, they're right back in charge of afghanistan. the taliban hates a ricans, so they'll kill bunch more once they take over afghanistan, and then you're going to have to come back and all over again for nothing. if you'll simply allow us to that local preferentialial we -- provincial power them from kabul hen, yaw -- then, yeah, maybe they can rise up and defeat the and you won't have
americans die like you have for all these years. sense.de but the only trouble is, the guy helped get afghanistan this ridiculous constitution that's basically a otalitarian-type presidency, that's who was negotiating with the taliban. wanted to beors he president of afghanistan at one but, regardless, his guy, he gave the bush administration bad advice. he gave the obama administration bad advice. trying to cut a deal with the taliban. the taliban, you can cut a deal they'll cut d then your throat the first chance they get. sense.s no bushe have people from the administration through the obama administration, karzai still
being listened to and he wanted pashtunis deal with the brothers, taliban. need to be dealing with our enemies. we need to be dealing with our allies. was one of the great angers by rejecting those who lost family members, risked take own lives to help us out the taliban, eliminate the originally, iban, ithout a single loss of american life. why wouldn't we want to put them positions of power? they can get elected. we just -- i said to massoud, what makes you think we could you amend your constitution? you're still paying for most of our government operations. threatened to pull out all
prematurely, yeah, we will change the constitution, but we need your help to do it so you don't have to keep losing american lives here in afghanistan. t made so much sense, but unfortunately, the deep state be deep, and to they have been part of it from the beginning. like a nice guy when i het him in afghanistan -- iraq back inhim in 2005. seemed like a nice guy. he's just the wrong person to be listened to. and americans have continued to been led while he's wanting to have peace talks with the taliban, not with the -- former northern alliance people that risked their lives, lost family members with us and for us. oh, no. we are not going to deal with them. them. going to leave and all the former northern alliance, they know when we we've cut a deal with
the taliban or leave things so right e taliban can take over again, they are all going to be killed. going to bere ain't anybody in afghanistan who will be able to stand up and fight the taliban. and on top of that, even if they ere, they wouldn't want to cut a deal with us because they will have seen the way the northern and lost lives to help us defeat the taliban. we do? we leave them high and dry, allowed the taliban to kill them we go. no, no. we need to be talking to our with us and ought got rid of all the organized by february, march of occupiers,e we became more or less. hat needs to be a federalist system there. we need our friends, our allies and don't the taliban
ant them back in positions of authority. i think president ghani would be but, you o do that, know, deep state just keeps getting deeper. need to negotiate with our they are in position to help our enemies not get back to kill americans again. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the yields back. and now the chair lays before the house the following the leged message from senate. the clerk: resolved, that the secretary of the senate be house ofto request the representatives to return to the senate the bill senate 1790, entitled, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year of0, for military activities the department of defense, for military construction, and for activities of the department of energy to prescribe military personnel fiscal year such and for other purposes.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request to, and nate is agreed s.1790 will be returned to the senate. does the urpose gentleman from texas seek recognition? do gohmert: i move that we now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the motion adopted. accordingly, the house stands
later today house republicans will attend a retreat in baltimore which we're covering. leader mccarthy will be holding a news conference at the retreat at 2:30 eastern time. the president will address house g.o.p. members, you can watch live coverage here on c-span or on c-span.org or listen on the c pan radio app. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house the supreme court and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country. so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of overnment.
saturday on book tv at 11:00 p.m. eastern, supreme court associate justice neil gorvutch discussing his book "a republic if you can keep it." on sunday, at 9:00 eastern on " afterwords," in his latest look "sentinel incorporated," a report on how labs in china manufactured a drug -- "fentanyl incorporated," a report on how labs in china manufactured the drug. >> if you are a scientist at university you published your paper and it went into some, you know, university library. pretty obscure, hard to find. but in the internet age, all of these papers were published online. >> and publicly available. >> exactly. >> around the world. >> exactly. so these rogue chemists began looking for these files specifically for these papers to
go through them and appropriate the chemical formulas to learn how to make these new drugs. >> at 10:00 eastern, oregon democratic senator jeff mur free provides a firsthand account of conditions for migrant families at the u.s. southern border in his book "america is better than this." >> ad vo cats have said that hundreds of boys who have been separated from parents were being warehoused in a wal-mart. so i went to find out about it. and they said they didn't want me to see what was going on. and they said call the police and the video went viral and suddenly all of america was hearing about cages and secret warehousing of migrant children. >> watch book tv every weekend n c-span2. >> at her weekly news conference, house speaker pelosi took questions about possible impeachment proceedings in the house. after the house judiciary
committee approved a resolution providing guidance for the committee to conduct an impeachment investigation. she also talked about the u.s.-mexico-canada agreement, gun legislation, and government officials staying at trump properties. >> good morning. yesterday we gathered on the steps of the capitol to hold a moment of silence. later that morning we had, in my caucus, the house democratic caucus, we had a presentation of the situation in afghanistan, a country that we went into following 9/11, to see where we are, where we go from here. the longest war in the history of the united states.