where this will lead us. big banks got away with robbing us and creating a major recession because they weren't regulated strongly enough. republicans think the answer is making it harder to regulate them. if this bill passes, it won't be the nameless, faceless, unelected corporate c.e.o.'s who feel the pain, it will be the americans from big cities and small towns who need federal standards to keep their environment clean, to keep their workplace safe and to make sure the products they buy won't hurt their families. my democratic colleagues are offering amendments today that exempt certain kinds of rules from the unrealistic burdens this bill creates. i support these amendments. my amendment is a little different. it's not nearly enough to -- the not nearly enough to save this terrible bill, but it takes a big step in the right direction. it acknowledges that doing nothing carries a major cost. it acknowledges human costs, climate change and requires agencies that propose regular

lyings to report how a rule impact -- regulations to report how a rule impacts greenhouse gas emissions. if we require reporting a rule's cost, with you wwe should report its impact to our planet and our way of life. it also requires analysis of a rule's impact on low income and rural communities. my republican friends are deeply concerned about whether new regulations mange big business and wall street investors happy. i think it's time we aelse is the impacts of regulations on the urban poor, the rural poor or our coastal native american tribes already fleeing the impacts of climate change or the farmers in the west and south struggling to cope with drought, flooding and extreme weather. . my amendment requires congressional approval of or increasereducing cardiovascular or respiratory

illness. if house republicans are so eager, they should be willing to cast recorded votes allowing the release of metric tons of pollution into our air and publicly vote to increase the rates of these terrible diseases. -- ng this amendment is a is at the very least we can do to make sure the bill doesn't put americans at risk of injury or death. i urge a yes vote on the amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> claim the time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> this requires that agencies report to congress on greenhouse gas impacts associated with the rule. it requires agencies to report on a rule's effect on low-income and rural communities.

further, the amendment expands the definition of major rule to include rules that allow increases of carbon emissions by more than 25,000 metric tons or that might increase the risk of certain diseases in rural or low-income communities. i oppose this amendment. e reins act isn't to address rules or regulations with heightened scrutiny and not others. it is to restore accountability with the largest regulatory decisions where the subject is involved. further and consistent with that, the congressional findings in one policy area, climate change, but no other, has no place in the reins act. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve.

mr. grijalva: it does not take into account public health or clean air and water and the effects on constituents, the environment or the cost tenant ant with increased illnesses and with that sweeping deregulation process that is being proposed by the majority, we have an exposure on issues of public health, clean air, clean water and the regulations that are in place to protect the public health and the well-being of the american people. my amendment just requires that if this sweeping change is to occur that members of this body take the votes that would release additional metric tons into the atmosphere, that would promote an increase in the level of disease in this country that is harmful to the american

people. it is one of disclosure and accountability. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. marino: reserved. the chair: the gentleman has the remaining time. mr. marino: i yield back. 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. grijalva: on that, i would request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, fufert proceedings on the -- further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 115-1. ms. castor: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number one printed in house report 115-1

offered by ms. castor of florida. houseair: pursuant to the resolution. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida. ms. castor: my amendment is to ensure that policies that protect children from cancer, asthma attacks or respiratory disease are not delayed or denied. for example, the clean air act, which has been in place for over 40 years and has improved our health and protected all americans from harmful toxic air pollution such as owes own, -- r dioxide and parallel particle pollution, we need the best science. toxic pollutants such as ozone are linked to asthma, heart and

lung disease and result in hundreds of deaths a year and up to 100 missed days of school and our kids are susceptible to this pollution because their lungs are developing and on average they take deeper breathes and place them at higher risk. the american lung association says inhailing smog pollution is like getting a sunburn on your lung and results in immediate breathing trouble. i remember back in the early 1970's what the air was like in my hometown in tampa. we had a lot of industrial users at the port of tampa, a lot of industrial plants, and i have seen the progress over time that the clean air act has brought to this country. we are not like other countries in the world. we are stronger, better and healthier because of the clean air act. so let's not go backwards. let's not throw a road block

like the reins act into the mix here. but we do have to be careful because there are many communities in america that continue to suffer and they are often the underserved, economically distressed communities. studies have shown working class communities often bear the bankrupt of environmental pollution because the only homes they can afford are often located near industrial sites. 78% of african-americans live within 30 miles of an industrial power plant and 71% of african-americans live in counties that violate federal air pollution standards. in addition to that, a study by the environmental defense fund found that our latino neighbors are likely three times to die from asthma. let's not go backwards. because what the reins act does, it really complicates the

american system of checks and balances. let's not go backwards, because it's not only our families and neighbors that would suffer, it's also our economy that suffers -- that would suffer as well. this type of regulatory scheme of mirrors and false promises would create great uncertainty for many of our businesses. and the clean air act is one example. these clean air protections in the united states have a great track record and we have grown as a country. the economic growth has tripled. our economic base has more than tripled. clean air probings and environmental protections go hand-in-hand with economic growth. since 1970, we have cut harmful air pollution by 70% while our economy has grown like gangbusters. i know many of you are going to have your ice on the tampa bay area when we have the college

football championship in tampa alabama versus clemson and look at our clean skies and i wish we could be back there. it hasn't been all that way when you see the beautiful sunset across tampa bay, that's because of the regulatory climate. if you have to come back to congress for every single little new policy that is based on updates and new science, that's going to complicate everyone's lives. i worry at the outset of this new congress because the first bill passed yesterday was one that short circuited public participation and now this bill appears to be a late christmas gift to corporate polluters who put profits over people. you can prove me wrong by supporting this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek

recognition? mr. marino: claim time to speak in opposition to this amendment. this exempts from the bill any rule reducing cancer, premature mortality and respiratory diseases in children, but do not be tooled. this is not reducing illnesses but transferring the power to decide how best to do so from elected representatives to unaccountable bureaucrats. government could substantially reduce teenage mortality by barring teenaged drivers off the road. of course there would be a substantial cost to that policy and there are less burdensome ways to receive the same reductions in mortality. the right decision requires a balancing of interests. agencies can provide valuable expertise but when there is a locality of stake, how best to strike that balance is properly made by elected officials accountable to the people. that is the intuition behind the

reins act and the fundamental point that is lost on those who oppose it. reducing serious disease is a goal that all members share. this bill does not frustrate that goal but ensures that elected representatives decide how best to achieve that policy so that our republic remains government by the people as the constitution designed. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. castor: of course this legislative body has all power to go back to policy making after an touchdown administrative agency makes a determination, but we are not micromanagers but legislators and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the castor amendment. if you won't create an exception to children's health, i wonder you are not willing to recognize the fundamental constitutional

basis of this government. it's one that relies on checks and balance ases as the basis of our government. i urge my colleagues to support the castor amendment but oppose the reins act in the end. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. marino: i reeled back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 115-1. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: i have an amendment at the desk.

the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 115-1 offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. cicilline: my amendment to h.r. 26 would exempt rules concerning public health or safety from the burdensome requirements of that legislation. simply put when a rule is necessary to protect the health and safety of the public, it's critical that the rule be put into effect without unnecessary delay. if this legislation is enacted without this amendment, it will create an environment that it will be possible for agencies to safeguard the public welfare. this legislation would bring to a grinding halt critical rulemaking such as rules relating to the transportation of hazardous materials by the department of transportation, clean air regulations by the e.p.a. and worker protection standards by osha. the national highway traffic administration implemented a

significant rule that by may 2018, all new vehicles must have rearview cameras. it will reduce the likelihood of backover crashes. under the reins act this will require an unjet particular time line. for every year this rule would be delayed, the traffic safety administration estimates there would be on average 15,000 injuries and 257 fatalities resulting from backover crashes. proponents of this legislation may argue that h.r. 26 contains an emergency exemption which allows a rule to take into effect saying there is an imminent health to safety. the danger to the public health and welfare may be great and the fundamental responsibility to protect the public remains. this legislation would hinder the ability of agencies to

fulfill this obligation placing americans at debater risk. in its present form, the coalition for sensible safeguards and alliances of consumer, labor and public interest groups present difficulties by allowing congress to veto rules that protect the public health and safety would be an obstruction that plagues our society. the sustainable business can you council which represents 200 businesses opposes h.r. 26 because it would place the burdenen of proof on consumers. shifting responsibility away from powerful corporate interests. while my amendment will not cure this legislation it will address one of the most glaring flaws, by protecting the public health and safety. and i reserve. . .

the chair: i rise to claim time in opposition to the -- mr. marino: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. marino: health and public safety regulations serve important goals, and the bill does nothing to frustrate the effective achievement of those goals. but federal health and public safety regulations concity institutes an immense part of total regulation and has been the source of many of the most abusive, unnecessarily expensive and job-wage destroying regulations. to remove these areas of regulation from the bill would severely weaken the bill's and increase the accountability of our regulatory system and the congress to the people. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. cicilline: mr. chairman, my

good friend just made an assertion that nothing in this legs, it does nothing to frustrate the goals of protecting health and safety. of course it does. it prevents implementation of rules which in fact protects health and public safety. if my amendment passes, it would do nothing to frustrate it. without this amendment it prevents implementation of a rule that may in fact or would in fact protect the health and public safety. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. it's a reasonable exemption that will ensure we protect the well-being and the health of our constituents, and i urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from -- mr. marino: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not -- mr. cicilline: 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 rhode island will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 115-1. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk and ask it be reported. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 115-1 offered by mr. conyers of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 22, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. chairman, my r. amendment would exempt from h.r. 26, the reins act, rules issued to reduce the amount of lead in public drinking water. the injection of lead, of course, causes serious, harmful effects on human health, even at low exposure levels, and

that's why the environmental protection agency has set the maximum contaminant level for this toxic metal in drinking water at zero. according to the e.p.a., young children, infants and fetuses are particularly vulnerable to the lead because the physical lead avioral effects of -- in wer levels children, low levels of exposure have been linked to damage to central and peripheral nervous system. learning disabilities, shorter stature, impaired hearing and impaired formation and function of blood cells. take, for example, the flint water crisis, which i have some

little experience with, which was a preventable hub health disaster. while much blame for the flint water crisis lies with unelected officials who prioritize saving money over saving lives, the presence of lead in drinking water is unfortunately not unique to flint. in fact, the drinking water of potentially millions of americans may be contaminated by lead. and so my amendment highlights one of the most problematic aspects of h.r. 26, that it could slow down or completely block urgent rulemakings that protect health and safety. this is because members simply like the requisite scientific or technical knowledge to independently assess the

bonafides of most regulation which are often the product of extensive research and analysis by agencies as well as input from entities as well as the public. as a result, members would have to make their own determination usually their own, inexpert use and limited information. worse yet, some may be persuaded to disapprove a rule in response to wide-ranging influence exerted by outside special interests that favor profits over safety. my amendment simply preserves current law with respect to regulations designed to prevent the contamination of drinking water by lead. and so accordingly, i sincerely

urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. marino: i rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. marino: the amendment seeks to carve out from the reins act reforms, regulations that would reduce the amount of lead in public drinking water. but like other amendments, this amendment is not so much about achieving a particular health or safety result. this is about taking the to do on the best how that away from elected representatives and handing it down to unelectable bureaucrats. agencies can provide valuable expertise, but when there's a lot at stake, the ultimate decision on how to best to strike the balance is properly made by elected officials accountable to the people.

this is the intuition behind the reins act and the fundamental point is lost on its opponents. preventing dangerous levels of lead in our drinking water is a goal all members share. this bill does not frustrate that goal. it merely ensures that elected representatives decide how best to achieve that policy so that a republic remains governed by the people as the constitution designed. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and i yield back. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i modify imous consent to my request to allow the gentleman from georgia two minutes. the chair: the gentleman asking to reclaim his time? mr. conyers: i ask to reclaim

the time, sir. the chair: without objection, so ordered. conn then, i am pleased to yield -- mr. conyers: then, i'm pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, a member of the judiciary committee, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for -- the gentleman may have a minute and a half of what's remaining from the gentleman from michigan's time. mr. johnson: i thank the gentleman and i thank the speaker. i rise in support of his amendment. protecting the health and safety of our citizens is one of the core responsibilities of our government and congress and trusts much of its authority to federal agencies to implement this obligation. this amendment simply preserves current law with respect to regulations designed to prevent the contamination of drinking water by lead. as the obama administration has observed in the context of a veto threat to a substandively identical version of this bill

last congress, the reins act would delay and in most cases thwart implementation of statutory mandates and execution of duly enacted laws, create business uncertainty, undermine much-needed protections of the american public, and cause unnecessary confusion. unfortunately, as i noted in my opening statement, the reins act would delay and worse yet possibly stop major rules from going into effect, including those that are needed to protect public health, safety and well-being, including those that require us to keep lead from drinking water. safety regulations are typically the product of a transparent and accountable process that includes extensive investigation, analysis and input from the public and private sectors. it is no answer to say that h.r. 26 contains a limited emergency exception. that provision is insufficient.

it merely allows a major rule to temporarily take effect without congressional approval for 90 days. so with that, i will yield the alance of my time and ask my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. marino: just to reiterate, our position is, it's about time we in d.c., in congress take our responsibility back from unelected bureaucrats and make these decisions. we have seen over the past eight years what overburdensome regulation has done to this country as far as crushing jobs . with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. conyers: i ask for a recorded vote.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 115-1. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? . johnson: i rise to -- as designee of the gentlewoman from texas, sheila jackson lee, to present her amendment in her absence. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report number 115-1 offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 22, the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. the jackson lee amendment exempts from this bill's onerous requirements congressional approval, the congressional approval requirement that any proposed

rule that's made to ensure the safety of products used or consumed by children under the this 2 is not hurt by bill. this amendment should pass for obvious reasons. if protecting public health and safety mean anything, it surely must include the protection of our children. because of the special vulnerability of young children, any regulation affecting their health and safety must not be delayed. unfortunately, if this bill passes, as written, without this amendment, that's exactly what will happen. the young children will be vulnerable to products that are unsafe and that could hurt them. and for this reason, sheila

jackson lee has offered this amendment, which i support. for example, a regulation meant to protect a child from death or injury from contaminated ormula, such a rule would be impeded impeded or the promulgation of such a rule and the enactment of that rule would be impeded by this administration, and this amendment would declare that in that case the rule would not apply. or this legislation would be exempted from this legislation. so toxic chemicals, dangerous from r deadly falls unsafe products could be avoided, and so, therefore, this amendment would protect children under those

circumstances. and so those kinds of rules need to be implemented promptly to save lives. and for that reason, the jackson lee amendment deserves your support. i hope that you can support it out of your heart, and with that i will reserve the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. marino: to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. marino: the amendment is protecting children. while safety is a goal of all members that we share, but to shield bureaucrats who write child safety regulations from accountability of congress is no way to guarantee child safety. the only thing it would guarantee is less careful decision making and more influence of bureaucrats. constitution and trust the

authority to protect children and all citizens from harmful products flowing in interstate commerce. while she should be able to trust congress to make sure that washington bureaucrats make the right decisions to protect child safety when we delegate legislative authority to regulatory agencies. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: the faceless, ameless deadly bureaucrats out here who mean the public harm, those are are our relatives, our mothers and fathers who work for the federal government. they are the civil servants that serve us. they are not nameless and faceless people of bad will and bad intent. they are good people who go to work every day and try to

protect us and protect our children. that's all we're asking for with this amendment is for there to be a carve out to protect the most vulnerable among us, our children. they legislation is based on the faulty premise that the costly regulations outweigh the benefits. what is the benefit when it comes to the health, safety and well-being of a child? the people who promulgate these rules mean to protect these children and this amendment goes to that ability of the regulators to do that. sometimes regulation is good. o even though a couple of jobs might go away because of the regulation, isn't it the health, safety and well-being of our

children that a couple of jobs could not reach fruition? i mean, let's look at it -- everything is not cost benefit analysis. sometimes there is some humanity in the mix that we have to consider. i urge my colleagues to think about it one more time and be in favor of the very reasonable jackson lee amendment and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. marino: the reins act doesn't prevent the bureaucracy or agencies making recommendations and suggestions to congress, it simply says congress will have the last word and not a handful of bureaucrats whom many do not have experience in this area. i urge my colleagues to not support this amendment but

support the reins act. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not -- mr. johnson: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 115-1. mr. johnson: i rise mr. chair in support of my amendment to h.r. 26. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 22, the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. johnson: i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 26, which would exempt from the bill rules that improve the

employment, retention and wages of workforce participants, especially those with significant barriers to employment. since one of the justifications or the main justification for is underlying legislation promote job growth from corporate titans at the expense, by the way, of health and safety of americans. at least we could exempt from the bill rules that improve the employment, retention and wages of workforce participants, especially those with significant barriers to employment. when president obama took office in 2009, he inherited the worst economic crisis since the great depression. this economic quagmire was

republican isguided policies that resulted on reckless decisions on wall street that cost millions of americans their homes and jobs. so in other words, the great recession which was caused by the collapse of the financial unreliability and instability of the predatory lending market which had taken hold and so much paper out there on wall street which was worthless because it was based on these hopes that people couldn't pay the notes for and all of that was caused by deregulation, lack of regulation . now we have a period with dodd-frank coming into play and the financial markets improving

the protection and economic security of american families increasing, being strengthened and now at the beginning of this congress, we get legislation to gut the dodd-frank regulation and other regulations that would protect people from excesses of the corporate community. and i'm just asking in this amendment that we don't let it apply in the case of situations where the bill improves employment redetention or wages or work force participants, especially those with barriers to employment. nd so according to leading economic indicators, private-sector businesses have created 15.6 million new jobs. the unemployment rate has

dropped to well below 5% to the lowest point in nearly a decade and incomes are rising faster while the poverty rate has dropped to the lowest point since 1968. this has all occurred during an administration that is pro-environment, pro--clean pro-workforce safety. during this time, our nation has doubled its production of clean nergy and reduced our carbon emissions faster than any other a barrel. gas is $2 despite these oppressive regulations that the other side complains about, there is still much work to be done for millions of americans who remain out of work, underemployed or

had not seen significant wage growth post recession. congress should be working across party lines to find solutions to stagnant wages such as a public investment agenda that will increase productivity and domestic output while turning the page of our historic underinvestment in our roads, bridges and educational institutions. unfortunately, mr. chair, this bill, the reins act is not a jobs bill but a legislative hacksaw to the critical public health and safety protections that ensure our nation is clean and homes and consumers' products are safe. with that, i'll reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. marino: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. marino: the reins act regulates attempt to improve employment, retention in earnings, particularly those with significant barriers to employment. the danger in the amendment is the strong incentive it gives agencies to manipulate their analysis of major regulations' job and wages impact. agencies will be tempted to shave the analysis to skirt the bill's congressional approval requirement. in addition, regulations alleged to create new jobs often do so by destroying existing jobs and creating new hope-for jobs associated with regulatory compliance. environmental protection agency, the e.p.a., clean air act rules have shut down existing power plants all over the country, throwing millions of workers out

of work. they tempt to justify that with claims that more new green jobs have been created. this is a way that government picks the jobs' winners and losers and there is no guarantee that all of the new green jobs will ever actually exist. the reins act is not intended to force any particular outcome and does not choose between clean air and dirty air and does not between new jobs and old jobs. the reins act chooses between two ways of making laws. it chooses the way the framers intended which accountability for laws with major economic impacts rests with congress. it rejects the way washington has operated for too long and there is no accountability because decisions are made by unelected agency officials. i urge my colleagues to oppose

the amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia has no time remaining. mr. marino: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment s not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 115-1. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 115-1 offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 22, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. nadler: mr. chairman, my amendment would exempt from the bill any regulations that pertain to nuclear reactor

safety. amendment would allow the n.r.c. to continue to issue rules making it easier to protect americans from potential nuclear disaster. the underlying legislation would grind the gears of law making to a halt by requiring regulations to be approved in advance by congress sm the regulations would be blocked if even one chamber declines to pass an approval resolution. the goal is to stop the regulatory process in its tracks regardless of the impact on public health and safety. one example that highlights the risks and dangers of this legislation is the subject of this amendment, nuclear power. the world watched in horror when an earthquake and resulting tsunami deficient vated area around japan a few years ago. that disaster caused the meltdown of three actors at the power plant. the meltdown led to the release of radioactive isotopes, the

exclusion zone around the power plant and the displacement consequently of 156,000 people. last month, just last month, seaborne radiation was detected on the west coast of the united states. the same year as the japan's meltdown, there was an earthquake felt up and down the eastern seaboard. the earthquake required a nuclear power plant to go offline and served as a wakeup call that our reactors needed additional safety protocols. for me, this concern is close to home. indian point, which has suffered numerous malfunctions, less than 40 miles away from my new york city district. 20 million people live within a 50-mile radius around the plant

the same radius used as the evacuation zone. indian point sits near two earthquake faults and according to the n.r.c. is the most likely nuclear power plant in the country to have core damage as a result of an earthquake. prevention of metdowns is absolutely vital. since the japan meltdown, the n.r.c. has issued new rowls to withstand earthquakes and backup power to avoid a meltdown. the n.r.c. must issue new regulation to safeguard the health and well-being of all americans. this bill is intentionally designed so new and important regulations including those to prevent a nuclear power plant meltdown which could affect millions of americans will likely never be put in place.

congress delegates authority to executive agencies because we do not have the expertise or the time to craft all technical regulations ourselves. we should defer to the engineers to determine after careful study that a particular regulation is critical to our safety and safe operation of a nuclear power plant. his, would however allow congress to substitute their views. this week, we began a new congress and we will have a new administration all controlled by republicans. between this bill and the midnight rules bill we passed yesterday, they have chosen to make their first order of business to dismantle the regulatory process regardless of the public health and safety. this these are the priorities we should expect in the next two years. we should try to ensure that the

anti-regulatory agenda does not have devastating consequences. i urge my colleagues to support the nadler amendment to exempt nuclear safety regulations from the onerous requirements of the underlying bill. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. marino: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. marino: all regulations that pertain to nuclear reactor safety standards, reins act supporters believe in nuclear safety. we want to guarantee that regulatory decisiones that pertain to nuclear reactor safety are the best decisions that can be made. but that is precisely why i oppose the amendment. by its terms the amendment shields from the reins act's congressional approval procedures, not only major regulations that would raise nuclear reactor safety standards but also regulations

that would lower them. all major regulations pertaining to nuclear reactor safety standards, whether they raise or lower standards, should fall within the reins act. that way agencies with authority over nuclear reactor safety would know that congress must approve their major regulations before they go into effect. that provides a powerful incentive for agencies to write the best possible regulation. ones that congress can easily approve. it is the solution that everyone should support because it makes congress more accountable and ensures agencies will write better rules while americans will be safer for it, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman is recognized for 30 remains seconds. mr. nadler: you answered my question. i thank the chair. mr. chairman, nuclear meltdowns are a tremendous danger to the life and safety of millions of americans. the congressional review act

provides that if the n.r.c. makes a regulation, congress can say no. that's appropriate. but to say that congress has to approve any regulation in advance, when there may be thousands of regulations or hundreds of regulations from different agencies, they may not get to it. we may not have time to study it and lives are at sake does not make sense. that's why this amendment at least cuts out nuclear meltdown regulations, nuclear safety regulations to say congress can veto them approximate it doesn't agree. but but -- them if it doesn't agree. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. marino: once again this administration has proven how thousands of regulations have crushed jobs for middle-class americans in this country. once again, the reins act does designate and allows and wants agencies to make decisions as far as what they think the law should be and send it to congress. we do have the time. we have the resources. we have the knowledge.

that's why we have full committees. that's why we have subcommittees. that's why we have experts come in and testify. but yet we still need to get back that the 535 members of congress, the house and the senate, make the final decision and not a handful of unelected bureaucrats. i reserve. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment -- mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman request a recorded vote? mr. nadler: i do. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 115-1. for what purpose does the gentleman from california sook recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise as the

designee for mr. pallone. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 115-1 northwesterny mc of california. -- mr. mcnerney of california. mr. mcnerney: pipelines threaten the safe and health of american citizens. this amendment will ensure that any rule intended to guarantee the safety of natural gas or hazardous materials pipelines is not considered a major rule under this bill and would therefore be easier to create. pipeline safety is a bipartisan issue. congress has shown, issuing regulations related to pipelines is a priority as evident with the enactment of the pipes act last year. however, the bill before us today, h.r. 26, contradicts

is historical precedent, won't prevent any rule going forward. pipelines cause serious injuries or deaths and harms the environment. there's approximately 2.9 million miles of pipelines in the united states. they travel through rural and urban areas, republican and democratic districts, coastlines, inland areas. everyone is impacted. quality control measures, new infrastructure and oversight are paramount. unfortunately, we have seen the devastating impact of pipeline incidents throughout the country, including several accidents and spills in california in recent years. such as this spill in santa barbara that released more than 100,000 gallons of crude oil. we've seen how liquid spills can devastate the people and economies in places like michigan and the irreplayersable natural resources like the yellowstone

river in montreal or the precious coastline of -- in montana or the precious coastline in santa barbara. these cause supply shortages and price increases that impact americans far from the site of the accident. the colonial pipeline accident last september in alabama leaked roughly 8,000 barrels of gasoline and saw prices increase by up to 31 cents a gallon in metropolitan areas in the southeastern states. i agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we want effective and efficient government, but in reality pipeline safety regulations are already subject to duplicative and time-consuming analyses, including rigorous risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis required by the pipeline safety statute. these already duplicative review requirements are among the top reasons why the pipeline and hazardous materials safety administration increasingly lags behind the

congressional mandate to issue the rules to protect americans from dangerous pipeline incidents. in fact, this is the subject of great deal of discussion when the energy and commerce committee marked up the pipeline safety re-authorization bill last year. i worked with chairman upton and ranking member pallone to address this issue. as both sides of the aisle agreed that the duplicative reviews currently required are already slowing down these critical safety laws, it's frustrating and dangerous. while we made progress in the pipes act, i believe we should do more. the last thing we need is one more layer of bureaucracy to further slow down implementation of critical protections for public health, safety in the environment. we need to minimize the impacts on spills or when incidents do occur. this includes automatic shutoff

valves, leak detection, technology to reduce rupture. a vote for this amendment is the vote for the safety for the public and the environment. it's a vote to protect the land and water that are threatened by those spills, and it's a vote for industry that wants certainty and clarity and doesn't want to or benefit from waiting years for rules to be finalized. for these reasons, i urge my colleagues to support in amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. marino: i rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. marino: the amendment seeks to carve out from the reins act's reforms regulations that concern natural gas or hazardous materials, pipeline safety or the prevention of pipeline spills and their adverse impacts. we all support pipeline safety and the prevention of harms from pipeline spills, but there's no assurance that the amendment would guarantee the achievement of those goals.

on the contrary, the amendment would shield procedures, regulations that actually threaten to decrease safety. they also would shield from the bill's congressional approval requirements new ideological driven regulations intended to impede's america's access to cheap, clean natural gas. and the legislative body is the legislative body. we are trying to have oversight over the bureaucracy. the house and the senate is not a bureaucracy. it's a legislative body, according to the constitution that represents the people of the united states and, therefore, the house and the senate and the president should have the last say in whether something becomes law or not. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized for his remaining 610ekds. mr. mcnerney: thank you, mr. chair. -- the chair: the gentleman

reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized for uzz his remaining 60 seconds. mr. mcnerney: thank you, mr. chair. the gentleman is right for the agency to go into the details in creating these rules. i know that the other side is opposed to the rules. they've been touting about regulations, but poor regulations reduces jobs too. it creates monopolies. it creates pollution. but that's not what we're talking about. what we're talking about is public safety, and i think what we need to do is look at what's going to benefit the public safety, what's going to protect lives, property and the environment and that's what this bill -- that's what this amendment does. it's simple. it exempts pipeline safety from h.r. 26, and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. marino: what better group

such as the committee on energy and commerce or other committees here, the full committees, the subcommittees would be looking out and should be looking out for the public safety and the welfare than the 435 members of congress? with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker, i call for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in house report 115-1. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. scott: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 115-1 offered by mr. scott of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 22, the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, my amendment would exempt from coverage under the reins act any rule which pertains to workplace health and safety made by the occupational ssafety and health administration, or osha, or the mine safety and health administration, msha, that is necessary to prevent or reduce the incidence of traumatic injury, cancer or irreversible lung disease. i'm offering this amendment because we should not be creating obstacles to the protection of life and limb. we should be concerned about repealing such workplace rules, and actually threes -- these concerns are not theoretical. there was a report from the chairman of the freedom caucus that actually calls for the repeal of multiple safety and health rules. one osha rule, for example, that would reduce slip, trip and fall hazards, which -- are actually a leading cause of worker deaths and loss to work

day injuries, we found this rule has not been updated since 1971, and osha has calculated over 10 years the rule will prevent nearly 300 worker deaths and more than 58,000 lost time injuries. cash benefit of the rule is protected to be over $3 billion over 10 years. another rule at risk is the modernization of osha's exposure limit, a 70-year-old health standard that was obsolete even before it was issued. workers developed incurable and frequently fatal illnesses, one known as chronic beryllium isease, also increased risk of lung cancer in the 1940's, worker at the atomic plants were developing this. two scientists agreed to set the

exposure limit at two microgram pers cubic meter of air while sitting in the back of a taxicab on the way to the meeting. this discredited standard is often called the taxicab standard because there's no data to support it. there's now significant scientific evidence to show it failed to protect workers. the cost of keeping the so-called taxicab standard is estimated at the loss of nearly 100 lives per year. we need to make sure this rule is updated and it is in final stages after 18 years of development the finalized rule is expected to come out soon. other rulings involve mine safety and other safety and health concerns. the reins act would make it harder to protect workers' health and safety. the bill would create more bureaucracy by require anything major rule receive bicameral legislative support within 70

legislative days prior to the rule taking effect. it even includes a reach back to consider rules from last spring. a single house of congress could block a rule that raises constitutional concerns, allowing a one-house veto. it violates the constitution of the united states. my amendment ensures the central workplace protections are not jeopardized by this flawed legislation. i urge a yes vote on my amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i rise respectfully to my friend and colleague mr. scott to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. > this --

mr. marino: this amendment carves out. but it is not about reducing injuries, it's about transferring powers, how best to do so, from elected representatives to bureaucrats. ariving at the right decision requires a delicate balancing of interests. agencies can provide valuable expertise but when there's a lot at stake, the ultimate decision on how best to strike the mans is properly made by elected officials accountable to the people. s the intuition behind the reins act and that fundamental point that is lost on its opponents. preventing workplace injury is a goal all members share. this bill does not frustrate that goal, it merely ensures that elected representatives make the final call about major decisions so that a republic remains government by the people as the constitution framers designed. i urge my colleagues to oppose

the amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for his remaining 90 seconds. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman i yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from connecticut. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 90 seconds. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this amendment which really is a life or death question before the chamber. mr. considerate nee: a bunch of workers lost their lyes in a horrific explosion because there was a natural gas blow when they intentionally put natural gas through a pipe to clean it. this is a practice that manufacturers have said was an unsafe practice. that wasn't followed this day, six men lost their lives. one of them was a friend of mine. in the private sector, the workplace standard was there, but there's no workplace standard in osha which again is

trapped in the regulatory process. this bill is just going to do nothing but add additional obstacles so that preventive measures that osha is really about, it's about compliance, not retribution. there was a $16 million fine imposed after the fact. the contractor went out of business and paid just a fraction of it. that's not the way to protect workers' lives. let's allow a healthy regulatory process so people like ronnie crabb won't lose their lives in the future. i strongly support the scott amendment and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. r. marino: yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back? the gentleman yields back. the question is on the motion by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. scott: on that, i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a roll call vote?

mr. scott: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in house report 114-1. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. sking: i have -- mr. king:ive an amendment at the disk. the chair: the chloric will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 115-1. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i've been a long and strong supporter of the reins act. i want to compliment congressman geoff davis of kentucky for introducing and crafting that legislation. while he was doing that, i was drafting a bill that i named the sunset act. i look at it from the broad scope of this that we have a lot of regulations that exist and have existed for decades and some of them are burdensome. some of them are not. but the effect of the reins act,

which i certainly will support on final passage, hopefully with the king amendment adopted in it, but the reins act de facto grandfathers in existing regulations. so it's only prospective. it addresses the major regulation going forward but not those we are stuck with such as the watts of the united states, the clean power plan, the overtime rule, the fiduciary rule, the net knew rality rule, dodd-frank rules and heaven forbid the obamacare rules should we fail to repeal obamacare. what the king amendment does is, it directs and allows the agencies and the exick -- -- and the executive branch of government to send a minimum of 10% of their regulations to congress each year for the duration of a decade, encompassing a full 100% of the regulations in place at the time of passage and enactment of the underlying legislation. that gives congress, then, authority and a vote over all of this it gives us the ability to amend that legislation. we can pass them all en banc or

amend them accordingly. we can do what our founding fathers ep visioned we should do, and that is the essence of this. president-elect trump has made some strong pledges on dramatically reducing regulation in the united states. he doesn't have the tools without the king amendment. and with that, i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: to rise in opposition to the king amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: i oppose this amendment which establishing and idiosyncratic process, establishing an automatic sunset of public health and safety protections. it requires that agencies conduct an annual review of 10% t rules to designate of its existing rules to be eliminated within 10 years of the bill's enactment unless congress enacts a join resolution of approval for eligible bills. i understand to the listening

public that that sounds kind of complicated but the bottom line is, thement to do away , my friends on the other side of the aisle, they want to do away with net neutrality. which was something that a requires. requires. so if you want the net, the internet which we all built and paid for through the federal government, through our taxes, and then we turned it over thth private sector, but we still have a public interest in the net being neutral so that all traffic flows equally over the web without some being slower than others, according to how much you can afford to pay, that's not fair. and so this king amendment is a part of a regulatory scheme proposed by this legislation, the reins act which is going to

hurt americans. it's going to hurt your health, the health, safety, and well being of the people when you're not able to have clean water, clean food, edible food, safe products, clean air, clean water, i mean, these are the things that the reins act gets at. it doesn't want americans to be healthy. it doesn't want the internet to be neutral. why? because corporate america and wall street put people in office to do their bidding. that's what the reins act is all about. this king amendment will make it worse. under current law, federal agencies already conduct an extensive retrospective review process of existing rules and have already saved taxpayers

billions of dollars in cost savings. since 2011, the obama administration has made a durable commitment to ensuring retrospective review of existing regulatory protection. under executive orders 13563 and 13610, the administration has required that agencies -- has required that of agencies. cording to howard shalanski, of the office of regulatory affairs under the obama administration, the obama administration's retrospective review initiative has achieved an estimated $37 billion in cost savings, reduced paperwork and other benefits for americans for the past five years. furthermore, as the obama administration stated in the context of a veto threat of a similarly draconian anti-regulatory proposal in a previous congress,s the -- it is important that retrospective

review efforts not unnecessarily constrain an agency's act to provide a timely response to critical public health or safety issues or constrain its ability to implement new statutory provisions. that is what the king amendment would do. in fact, because agencies are already committed to a thorough review process to identify and eliminate regulatory burdens, it may be impossible for agencies to make additional cuts without severely affecting public health and safety. lastly, while the majority has repeatedly noted that h.r. 26 is forward-looking legislation, this amendment would make the bill apply retroact ily to protections and safeguards that exist at the bill's date of enactment. a bold attempt to gut protections adopted by the administration including net neutrality. i oppose this amendment and urge

my colleagues to do the same and with that, i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. efor what purpose does -- the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: mr. chairman, i would inquire as to how much time may be remaining for each side. the chair: the gentleman has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from georgia has a half minute remaining. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd be happy to yield a minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino. chip the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. marino: thank you, congressman king. i fully support congressman king's amendment. it improves the viability of the reins act and makes sure that the responsibility of legislation is in the hands of we legislators. but let me just ask this simple question. my good friend on the other side says we should let the agencies and departments regulate and make rules. let me ask you this. how has it been going the last 2 years in this country?

we're $20 trillion in debt. 20 million people out of work or underemployed. are we going to continue to let bureaucrats make these decisions that crush jobs? no, i don't think so. it's our responsibility in the house, it's our responsibility in the senate. we can hear from those individuals as i've repeatedly said here and those agencies, but we need to make the final decision because look at the track record over the last 20 or 30 years of unelected bureaucrats making these rules, laws, and regulations. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from iowa reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: boy, i tell you, we can't blame a $20 trillion deficit or debt on nameless, faceless bureaucrats. we can blame a lot of that on the george bush administration and the legislators who voted for income for tax cuts for the

wealthy that were not paid for and funded two wars that were not paid for. that's what we can blame that $20 trillion deficit -- debt on. again, if you're in favor of net neutrality, you should be in favor of this amendment. you should oppose this amendment. i'm sorry. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: there is a huge cost to our executive branch of government. the unnecessary component, all those goes against our debt and deficit. and we saw as barack obama came in as president, we had a $10 trillion debt, which he was very critical of throughout his campaign in 2007 and 2008. now as he leaves office here, thankfully in a couple of weeks, it's a $20 trillion and

we can start to ratchet this thing back down. looking at the obama administration, their reports on the cost of regulation, they come up with this number. reported to the heritage foundation that the annual cost of regulations to the united states, according to the obama administration, is $108 billion, mr. chairman. and so that is what we're looking at here for cost. i want to get at the real meat of this. article 1 of the constitution says congress shall make all law, and yet we have the courts making laws over across the street and we have regulations coming at us at a rate of, i express to the gentleman from georgia, 10-1. for every law we passed in the last congress, 114th congress, there were at least 10 regulations that were poured over our head and we're sitting in a place where we don't have the tools to undo them. now we have a president that's ready, and he wants to undo these regulations. if we make him march through the administrative procedures act, it's heavy, it's burdensome and it's time consuming, but this king amendment gives the tools for the next president of the

united states to work with congress, to trim this regulatory burden down and the most important part is, it makes all of us, all of us in the house and the senate, accountable, then, for all of the regulations. regulations were allowed -- the e.p.a. was passed to dish off this legislative responsibility to the executive branch. congress took a pass. they ducked their responsibility of being accountable for all legislation and found a way to be producing less than 10% of the legislation that exists even in a given year. so the king amendment says, over a period of a decade, 10% a year at a minimum, congress will have to review all the regulations and the people from across america, we the people, will weigh in on that regulation and then an even better part of this, not om will we be accountable here in congress, and we should be, but when the bureaucrats, the nameless, faceless bureaucrats refuse to listen to our constituents, there will be a little bug in the back of their ear saying, you know what, this constituent that may be losing

their business over this regulation, the next stop they make will be with their congressman and these regulations that we promulgated are going to be subject -- are going to be subject then being repealed by the united states congress as they should be. support the king amendment. it puts the authority back into the hands of article 1, we, the people. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. pursuant to is -- clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from owa will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. marino: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. all those in favor say aye.

all those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. mr. speaker, the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 2 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from california, mr. royce, seek recognition? mr. royce: pursuant to house resolution 22, i call up house resolution 11 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 11, resolution objecting to the united nations security council resolution 2334 as an obstacle

to israeli-palestinian peace, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 22, the resolution is considered as read. the gentleman from california, mr. royce, and the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. royce: i am pleased to yield one minute to the esteemed speaker of the house, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. the speaker: yes. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the speaker: my colleagues, i'd like to read you a quote. quote, peace is hard work. peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the united nations. if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. ultimately, it is the israelis

and the palestinians who must live side by side, closed quote. that was president obama in 011, and he was right. i am stunned, i am stunned at what happened last month. this government, our government abandoned our ally, israel, when she needed us the most. do not be fooled. this u.n. security council resolution was not about settlements, and it certainly was not about peace. it was about one thing and one to g only -- israel's right exist as a jewish democratic state. these types of one-sided efforts are designed to isolate

and delegitimize israel. they do not advance peace. they make it more elusive. the cornerstone of our special relationship with israel has always been right here in congress. this institution, the heart of our democracy has stood by the jewish state through thick and thin. we were there for her when rockets rained down on tel aviv. we were there for her by passing historic legislation to combat the boycott diinvestments and sanctions movement. and we have been there for her by ensuring that israel has the tools to defend herself by those who seek her destruction. and in every one of those instances, every one, republicans and democrats worked together to get these

things done. that's because our historic alliance with israel transcends party labels and partisan bickering. we see that bipartisanship right here on the house floor today in condemning this anti-israel resolution. i want to thank our chairman, chairman ed royce, and i want to thank our ranking member, ranking member eliot engel, all of our members on both sides of the aisle, i want to thank all of them for speaking out on this issue and for helping assemble this legislation. it sends a powerful message, and it turns a page. it is time to repair the damage done by this misguided hit job at the u.n. it's time to rebuild our partnership with israel and reaffirm our commitment to her security. and it's time to show all of our allies that regardless of

the shameful events of last week, the united states remains a force for good. i ask the whole house to support this resolution on behalf of the american people. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this measure, and i thank the speaker for his words. before making my statement, though, i would like to field 15 minutes of my time to my friend, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. david price, and i ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from north carolina will control 15 minutes. mr. engel: now i yield myself such time as i may consume or is the chairman -- this is good. all right.

i want to start by thanking our chairman, ed royce, who offered this resolution. i'm proud to be the democratic co-sponsor and glad to say that more than 30 democrats representing a broad cross section of our party has signed on as co-sponsors to this bipartisan resolution. ed royce and i have worked together for the past four years, and we believe that foreign policy should be bipartisan and that partisanship should stop at the water's edge. frankly, this is what we're doing today. we are condemning what happened because we think it's unfair and unjust. i want to also mention that i join with my friend from north carolina, mr. price, in authoring an amendment to this resolution that wasn't accepted which emphasizes a two-state solution. i want to thank mr. price for his hard work on that approach, and i support it. we talk in this resolution about a two-state solution as well. mr. speaker, throughout its entire history, the state of israel has never gotten a fair shake from the united nations.

year after year after year, member states manipulated the u.n. to bully our ally, israel, to pile on with one-sided resolutions, placing all of the blame for the ongoing conflict on israel. we saw a resolution like this come before the security council a few weeks ago, and today the house of representatives will go on record saying that that u.n. resolution is wrong, plain and simple, and frankly we should not have voted for that. the security council resolution is highly critical of israel, it asks nothing directly by the palestinians. it's biased, it's unfair, it's unbalanced and, again, we should have opposed it, we should have vetoed it. the language about jerusalem is not new but it remains offensive to jews whose hol site is in jerusalem. the western wall is simply not occupied territory and it's offensive to hear that. so in the measure the house is considering today, we repudiate this flawed security council

resolution, and at the same time we will say once again that we support a two-state solution, that the only way to reach that goal is through direct negotiations between the israelis and the palestinians and that the shameful security council resolution put that goal further out of reach. mr. speaker, the international community facest the longest oppressing issues -- mass killings in south sudan, a crisis in yemen, a humanitarian disaster in syria, russia's illegal occupation of ukraine and north korea's nuclear weapons program. yet, rather than deal with those critical problems, the member states of the u.n. have chosen instead to use the international body to embarrass israel. it's outrageous and this house resolution that i'm co-sponsoring with mr. royce rightfully says that it's outrageous. now, i think it was a mistake for the current administration to abstain on this vote in the u.n. i have been clear about that. i want to be fair. before anyone turns this debate

on another attack by president obama, we should be aware of the history of this issue. this is the first time in eight years the obama administration has allowed a resolution opposed by israel to go forward. the george bush administration allowed it to happen six times. the clinton administration three times. the reagan administration 10 times, including voting for condemning israel for its premed dated act of aggression, that's a quote, when it widely destroyed the nuclear reactor in 1981. regardless of that history doesn't justify these latest abstention. my mother used to say two wrongs don't make a right and she was right. it was wrong then and it's wrong now. i think allowing governments to bully israel in the u.n. is a mistake no matter who's in power. instead, let's focus on what we should be doing when it corporation to advancing the two-state solution. this resolution calls for us to get back to the policy that many of us support. one, standing with israel in

the united nations. two, stopping one-sided resolutions. three, supporting direct negotiations is the only way to move toward a two-state solution. this resolution says all that. everyone in this congress should be voting for it because it's balanced. i'm pleased to support this resolution, and i urge all members to do the same and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: thank you. i want to begin by thanking the ranking member, the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, and i thank him for working with me in a bipartisan manner, not just on this resolution but on the one that we worked on late last year in order to forestall, unanimous vote by this body directing the administration not to take the steps the administration has

taken. i appreciate the leader -- i appreciate the speaker as well working with us to ensure this resolution was brought quickly to the floor of this house. today, we put congress on record objecting to the recent u.n. security council resolution that hurt our ally, that hurt israel, and i believe that puts an enduring peace further out of reach. the united states has long recognized that a solution to the israel-palestinian conflict can only come about through direct, bilateral negotiations between these two parties and that is why it is listeningstanding u.s. policy to veto the many one-sided, the many anti-israel resolutions at united nations security council that violate that principle. but just the other week, the obama administration broke with

this long-standing u.s. policy by failing to veto u.n. security council resolution 2334. this dangerous resolution effectively states that the viewish quarter of the old city of jerusalem and the western wall, judaism's holiest site, are in the words of the resolution, occupied territory. why would we not veto that? it also lends legitimacy to efforts by the palestinian authority to put pressure on israel through the u.n. rather than to go through the process of engaging in direct negotiations and it puts wind in the sails of the shameful boycott di vestment and sanctions movement. unquestionably, this u.n.

security council action damages the prospects for peace. the resolution and bullying and harassment of israel that it will spur only happen for one reason. the obama administration let it happen. and that went against the distinct warnings from this body, mr. engel and i engaged in letters, in conversations, with senior administration officials seeking their assurance that the united states would veto one-sided anti-israel resolutions and in november, the house unanimously, all of us, passed a resolution which warned the administration against taking such last-minute action. and with that resolution, house concurrent resolution 165, the house unanimously stated that the united states government should continue to oppose and veto united nations security council resolutions that seek to impose solutions to final status

issues or are one-sided and anti-israel. yet the administration rejected the call from congress and chose a course that will bring harm for years to come by failing to veto u.n. security council resolution 2334. if the palestinians want a lasting peace, they must accept that israel, not the u.n., is their negotiating partner and that means ending the incitement to violence against israelis that goes on in so many of the mosques, that goes on in the schools that goes on in the newspapers, and on television there and it also means -- and i think this is the most important fact because leaving this out of the resolution at the u.n. is beyond me. ending their pay to slay scheme. you talk about a lack of balance. here we have a situation where

since 2003, it has been palestinian law to reward palestinian terrorists, terrorists, to go out and they're given this incitement this stipend for life and the more mayhem they create, the more horrific the number of civilians they attack and therefore the longer the sentence, the more they know, well, i can serve my time and then when i get out, i can get this stipend for the rest of my life and it is larger and larger, depending upon the amount of mayhem. if i don't make it or if i'm a suicide bomber , my family gets the stipend. hat, by law is the way the palestinian authority has engineered this. costing the lives and you can read about it every month, those civilians attacked on the

streets. it's not just israelis, of course. taylor forrest, a u.s. marine, was killed simply because he was in israel, but it was by someone responding to the incitement. so $300 million per year spent to the palestinian authority to do that. no mention of that by the united nations. and that's why today's action is so important. to demn strait our united opposition to u.n. security council resolution 2334, call for its repeal, to head off any more moves the obama administration might have in the next few days with respect to the paris conference next week as well and to provide the foundation for the next administration to move forcefully to counteract its dangerous impact. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time they have gentleman from north carolina is recognized. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman prereserves the balance of his time.

the gentleman from north arolina is recognized. >> i appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with me on a resolution that's more accurate and less divisive, a resolution the majority has unfortunately denied hearing on the floor today. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. price: the resolution before us today fails to confirm our support for a two-state solution. it provides an inaccurate counting of the long stabding u.s. policy toward the israeli-palestinian conflict. it includes reckless and divisive charges regarding the recent united nations security council resolution. designed, it would appear, solely to embarrass the outgoing administration. it falsely claims, for example, that the security council resolution, quote, contradicts the oslo accords. it goes so far as to link the

resolution to the boycott and di vestture movement. now mr. speaker -- and divestiture movement. now mr. speaker, there's room for debate about the u.n. resolution and the u.s. decision to abstain. but there shouldn't be room for this disgraceful distortion. h.res. 11 doesn't really engage the issues. it obscures and distorts them. i suggest that both those who support and oppose recent u.s. actions should oppose this irresponsible and divisive resolution. it does distort the record. in fact, during the obama administration, fewer u.n. security council resolutions red lighting to the israeli-palestinian conflict have passed than under any other modern presidency. the december resolution is the only one that's passed under president obama's leadership and if you want a fair and comprehensive account of the thinking that went into that

difficult decision, i commend to every member samantha powers' statement at the united nations, one of the finest statements of its sort that i've ever read. house resolution 11 also doesn't take into account the fact that republican an democratic administrations alike have allowed security council resolutions adrissing the israeli-palestinian conflict to passmark of which were opposed by israel. the fact is, h.res. 11 runs a real risk of undermining the credibility of the united states congress as a proactive force working toward a two-state solution. in this period of great geopolitical turmoil and uncertainty, we must reaffirm those fundamental aspects of our foreign policy including our strong and unwavering support for israel while also common straiting to the world that we are committed to a diplomacy that defends human rights and promotes israel and palestinian

state, israeli and palestinian states that live side-by-side in peace and security. a formulation that has characterized our country's diplomacy for decades. h.res. 11 would muddy the waters of our foreign policy at best. t worst, it could set back our efforts to achee and just and lasting peace between israelis and palestinians. i can't in good faith support this resolution. i urge a no vote and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alifornia is recognized. mr. royce: in response, mr. speaker, we did have a substitute from mr. price but it didn't mention the united nations security sun sill -- council resolution 3334. we worked hard to develop a

statement that repudiate this dangerous resolution that was passed and also warn the white house against taking additional more thans in the last few weeks of this administration. i think it's important to remind the body that this is very concerning, given the backdrop of the paris conference on the 15th of this month and the very real concern that the president could take further steps at the u.n. again, mr. price's amendment did not include this urgent warning, so i wanted to say that i am happy to work with mr. price in a bipartisan manner once the foreign affairs committee organizes but time is of the essence. we must act to reject united nations security council resolution 2334, not remain silent on it. and we've got to limit the damage that the administration has caused to prospects for a lasting peace. i will yield three minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, chairman emeritus of the committee on foreign

affairs. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. this resolution, mr. speaker, will not undo the damage that has been done at the security council but it sends an important message to the world that the united states congress resoundingly and in a strong, bipartisan manner disapproves of the vote take on resolution 2334. it sends a warning to the nations that will gatt for the paris next week to discuss the peace process that there will be repercussions if there is a move to introduce a parameters resolution before the 20th and in an effort to further isolate israel. our closest friend and ally, the democratic jew herb state of israel, has been under constant attack by the united nations. abu mazin and the palestinians

have pushed a campaign to delegitimize the jewish state, to undermine the peace process, to achieve unilateral statehood recognition. we've seen it this year. at unesco where that sham of an institution voted on several occasions to deny and distance jewish and christian historical and cultural ties to jerusalem. we've seen it at the human rights council where israel is constantly demonized and falsely accused of human rights violations while the real abusers of human rights go unpunished because that body has out lerfi -- utterly failed to uphold its mandate. s that body that allows the worst abusers of human rights like cuba, venezuela, and china, to actually sit in judgment of human rights worldwide. what a pathetic joke. yet the only thing they can

agree on is to attack israel, the only democracy in the middle east and the only place in the region where human rights are protected. we've seen this scheme to delegitimize israel at the general assembly where in its closing legislative session, the general assembly passed 20 -- 20 -- anti-israel resolutions and only four combined for the entire world. these institutions have no credibility and now we have the unfortunate circumstance of the white house deciding to abstain from this anti-israel, one-sided resolution at the security council. our ally was abandoned and credibility and momentum were given to the palestinian schemes to delegitimize the jewish state, to undermine the peace process, and while the damage has been done, mr. speaker, by this act of cowardice, at the

security council, we will have an opportunity to reverse that damage. in the coming weeks and months, this congress and the incoming administration must show unyielding support for our ally israel and to undo the damage done. this resolution by the speaker and the ranking -- by the chairman and ranking member is an all-important first step that signals our intent. i urge my colleagues to support this measure and i look forward to working with chairman royce and ranking member engel and further strengthening our u.s.-israel bond. thank you, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: it's my pleasure to yield one minute to my good friend from california and senior member of the foreign affairs committee, mr. brad sherman. the chair: the gentleman -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sherman: let's look at the timeline. the reagan administration and

other administrations have failed in the past to veto anti-israel resolutions and that's not been helpful to the cause of peace. over the last few decades, israel that is frozen or removed settlements in an effort to negotiate peace, all to no avail. on november 29 of last year this house unanimously urblinged our u.n. ambassador to veto any u.n. resolution that sought to impose peace settlement terms. but a month later, our u.n. ambassador ignored the input of this house and allowed the u.n. to adopt a one-sided resolution that saw -- sought to impose peace terms on the parties. worse yet that u.n. resolution equates the western wall, judaism's holiest site, with outposts deep in the west bank that are illegal under israeli law. today we consider a house resolution that has over 30 democratic co-sponsors. it is not a pro-settlements

resolution. it strongly and repeatedly reaffirm ours support for a two-state solution, achieved through direct negotiations. and it objects to a u.n. resolution that set back the cause of peace. vote yes. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, the longtime chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on africa, global health, global -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: i thank the chairman for authoring this resolution along with ranking member. president obama's abstaining nd not vetoing resolution 2334 abandons israel in a critical hour and does serious injury to the historical record. the egregiously flawed u.n. text says all israeli settlements after the 1949 armistice, including east jerusalem and west bank have no legal validity and constitutes

a flagrant violation under international law. this resolution repudiates 2334. it makes clear that a durable and sustainible peace agreement between israel and the palestinians will only come through direct bilateral negotiations, not one-sided anti-israel resolutions. mr. speaker, the u.n. resolution could on vali leaders and even average israeli settlers to criminal prosecution. israel's enemies are likely to exploit 2334 by seeking prosecutions in venues like the international criminal court for construction activities even though the vast majority of this activity takes place legally pursuant to israeli law. a few hours ago the european jewish press reported that leaders of the conference of presidents of major jewish organizations have called on france to cancel or at least postpone what they called an

ill conceived, poorly timed and damaging event, the paris mideast conference scheduled for january 15. i hope we will also call upon our government not to go to this right before a transition of the white house and the presidency and mischief that could be forthcoming from that. they pointed out in their statement that israel has long sought direct talks and that it is now time for the palestinian leaders to stop evading their responsibility and seeking to use international foray to avoid the only true past to lasting peace and that's a settlement. one pointed out that u.n. is a long -- as my good friend from florida said a moment ago, 20 israeli resolutions against just four in 2016. a bias and discrimination. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to our colleague from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: i stand here as a proud jew and someone who throughout my entire life has been an advocate for the state of israel and i am standing here to oppose h.res. 11. and as a member of congress, i've been committed to maintaining america's unwavering support for israel, which has lasted from the very moments of israel's existence. the u.s.-israel bond is unbreakable despite the fact that united states administrations have not always agreed with the particular policies of an israeli government. contrary to the assertions of h.res. 11, the u.s. has often expressed those differences in the context of the united nations. presidents from lyndon johnson

to george w. bush have each vetoed and sometimes voted for a u.n. resolution contrary to the wishes of israel -- israel's government at the time. only the obama administration until two weeks ago never, ever cast a vote against what israel wanted. but opposition to the building of settlements on land belonging to palestinians before 1967 war was with the exception of the land, of course, that's going to be swapped, agreed to by both parties, has been the official u.s. policy for many decades contrary, again, to the assertions of h.res. 11. it has also been the policy of the united states to recognize that the only long-term solution to the israel-palestinian conflict, the violence, loss of life is to create two states. one for the palestinians and one for israel. a two-state solution is the

only way israel can continue as both a democratic and a jewish state, living in peace and security that has eluded her from the very beginning. the building of settlements is an obstacle to achieving that goal. and, of course, settlements aren't the only obstacle to israeli-palestinian peace. the u.s. resolution reiterates the palestinian authority security forces must continue to counterterrorism and condemn all of the provocations. i yield back and urge a no vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: yes. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, judge ted poe, who has served for years as chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman. the recent stunt at the united nations targeting israel is the latest effort by the

administration to cement a legacy of a foreign policy that has failure, especially with our trusted ally, israel. it has been the u.s. policy to veto any u.n. resolution dictating parameters on the israeli-palestinian peace process. the reason is simple -- true peace can only be achieved at the negotiating table between the palestinians and the israel i.c.e., not at the united nations. -- the israelis, not at the united nations. the one-sided anti-israeli resolution will only make peace harder. the u.n. adopted 20 anti-israeli resolutions last year while passing just four for the rest of the world. the u.n. is not fair and unbiased. by pointing the finger solely at israel, the ruent -- the recent resolution did not go toward peace. the palestinian authority has failed to stop violence against jews, and it continues to get -- get this, mr. speaker -- to make payments to jailed

palestinian terrorists who have harmed or killed jews. over the years israel has traded land for promised peace. they have no peace, and soon if the united nations gets its way, it will have no land. despite the administration's policy of abandoning our trusted ally, israel, the united states congress must stand with our ally, israel. and that's just the way it is. i'll yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: mr. speaker, i now yield one minute to one of our new members, the gentlewoman from nevada, who has made support for israel part of her entire life and giving her first speech on the house floor in support of this resolution and support of its, ms. jacky rosen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from nevada is recognized for one minute. ms. rosen: thank you, mr. speaker. i am proud to stand with both of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in support of this resolution and to lend my name

as a co-sponsor. the united states' alliance with israel is critical, and this is not the time to show uncertainty about the state of our relationship. this resolution does a number of important things, but the most important is that it reaffirms congress' long-standing support for bilateral settlement of the israeli-palestinian conflict and objects to the united nations' security council resolution 2334. paragraph 5 of that resolution is reminiscent of a recent u.n. human rights council resolution that established a database of companies in the settlements facilitating a boycott. the u.n. resolution does nothing to advance the cause of peace and is in fact an obstacle to it. strongly ensuring the security of israel is the only pathway to lasting settlement. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this resolution. thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. wilson: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, chairman royce, for yielding. i appreciate your leadership for peace. i am in strong support of the house resolution which is taking a firm stand and clear stand objecting to the united nations security council resolution as an obstacle to israeli-palestinian peace. this united states has stood with israel against one-sided bias resolutions at the united nations and in other international forums. additionally, the united states has been addment that a peaceful resolution will come by direct negotiations, not addressed in an international forum. the distorted ideology of moral neutrality is suicidal for civilization, encouraging what the chairman correctly

identified is pay for slave as evidence by the murder of one this year. on december 23, my constituents were shocked as the obama administration betrayed the people of israel, undermining the peace process by failing to veto the u.n. security council resolution. president obama and secretary kerry's actions reveal dangerous irresponsibility, putting israeli and american families at risk of more terrorist attacks. fortunately, governor nicky haley, president donald trump's appointee, will soon be making a positive difference as u.n. ambassador of the united states, promoting peace through strength. today, i'm grateful to stand strong with israel by being an original co-sponsor of house resolution 11. i appreciate the leadership of majority leader kevin mccarthy, chairman ed royce, the ranking member eliot engel for sponsoring this resolution and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. speaker, i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. gutierrez: my commitment to the state of israel is steadfast but my first loyalty is to peace, peace that's protected by genuine self-determination. i know in my heart that only path to peace is to have two separate sovereign states that peacefully co-exist. the two-state solution is at the heart of every foreign policy and every president since i got here in 1993 put the two-state solution at the heart of what america wants for her friend, israel. as i said on the house floor on december 6, if we are ever going to achieve the permanent peace that allows israel to exist without fear and palestinian to exist without -- palestine to exist without occupation, we must continue to fight for the two-state solution. but under the current strong man government in israel, all pretenses and illusions are being stripped away from

settlements to water to restricting the muslim call to prayer in jerusalem. it seems that anything goes. today as america embarks on its own experiment with strong man politics, this congress is falling in line. this congress that allowed our chamber to be used for an israeli campaign rally and tv commercial is bending to pressure from abroad and pressure at home. mr. speaker, i do not doubt the commitment to peace of the american people, so i urge my colleagues to vote with their hearts and minds and defeat this house resolution. mr. speaker, i now ask unanimous consent that my remarks on the floor of december 6 in support of a two-state solution be entered again in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. yoho: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank chairman royce and ranking member, mr. engel.

mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the nation of israel, one of our greatest allies in the middle east. i urge my colleagues to support h.res. 11, objecting to the united nations security council resolution 2334. u.n. security council resolution 2334 calls for a palestinian state but not a jewish state. it does nothing to condemn or stop the palestinian authorities pay to slave, as we've talked over and over again, that rewarded over $300 million to terrorists in israeli jails last year for crimes committed against israeli citizens and others. it legitimize other efforts to sanction israel. it declares the jewish quarter of the old city of jerusalem where the city of david has been excavated and the western wall, the holiest site as occupied territories. this is absurd. furthermore, the obama administration refused to veto it, this shameful move broke with years of u.s.