principle linking back to dred scott and through the japanese internment cases and teeing up the conversation that's going to be happening in just a few minutes perhaps in the republican party debate. >> well, speaking of that debate, like all good c-span shows, this one should end on time. but i want to close by telling you, ladies and gentlemen, both how excited we are and asking you to join us as pioneers in constitutional education. you have the opportunity to watch the shows every monday and then learn more. click on the links. click on the websites. read the decisions. read the majority opinions. read the dissents. make up your own mind. you don't have to be a lawyer to be engaged in this process of constitutional education. you just need to be a person. akhil mentioned justice holmes.

justice holmes said the constitution is made for people with fundamentally different points of view. the constitution is a debate all citizens can participate in and c-span believes that with its great nonpartisan motto. my justice was the greatest justice of the 20th century. he reminds us public discussion is a political duty. it's not just a right we have of free speech. we have an obligation to educate ourselves about the best arguments on all sides of the constitutions. thanks so much to susan for her vision in creating this series and to her phenomenal team. tune in on october 5th. thanks so much.

[ applause ] number 759. petitioner versus council. c. >> madison is probably the most famous piece in court. >> it existed as laypeople here. >> dead and harriet as laypeople here on land for slavery wasn't legally recognized.

>> odinga brown dissented to affect would take presidential orders. and the presence of federal troops and marshals and the courage of children. >> we wanted to pick cases that change the direction and import of accord in society and also change society. >> she told them they would have to have a search and demanded to see the paper in to read it to see what it was which they refused to do so she grabbed it and looked at it and thereafter the police officer handcuffed her. >> i can't imagine a better way to bring the constitution delight them by telling the human stories behind great supreme court cases. >> fred korematsu boldly opposed the forced internment of japanese-americans during world

war ii. after being convicted for failing to report for relocation , he took his case all the way to the supreme court. >> quite often and are most famous decisions are ones that the court to that were quite unpopular. >> if you had to pick one freedom that was the most essential to the functioning of the democracy it has to be freedom of speech. >> it's go through three cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who helped stick together because they believed in the rule of law. >> landmark cases and expiration of 12 historic supreme court decisions and human stories behind them. a new series on c-span produced in cooperation with the national

constitution center, debuting monday october 5 at 9:00 p.m.. and as a companion to our new series landmark cases the book features the 12 cases we have selected for the series with a brief introduction into the background, highlights and impact of each case written by veteran supreme court journalist tony mauro published by c-span in cooperation with congressional quarterly press. landmark cases is available for $8.95 plus shipping and handling. get your copy at c-span.org/landmark cases.

>> this issue with iran is one of the most significant if not the most significant foreign-policy issue that we likely will deal with while we are here in the senate so i think it is important while this is before us to spend as much time as possible talking about this issue, focusing on this issue, debating this issue making sure that everyone understands what the content of this iranian deal is. let me just walk through it that good for a few moments and lay

out why we are where we are today. first of all four times the presiding officer is new here and brings a wealth of national security experience and previous posts he had with the state department prior to serving here. but what brought us here really was us acting almost in unanimous ways to put sanctions in place four times in this body, four times since 2010 working with the house of representatives, put sanctions in place because we knew that iran was doing things and nuclear development that would be damaging to the world so we sanction them and punish them and put crippling sanctions on economy and we did that collectively. this is something that very few people on either side of the aisle objected to. we acted in unison and those crippling sanctions that we put in place together that really

brought iran to the table. let's face it they are connie, the standard of living, people were becoming restless so finally iran setup it's time to talk. when these talks began our president stated that what we would do in these talks is we would and iran's nuclear program and just for what it's worth i think people on both sides of the aisle celebrate that goal, ending iran's nuclear program. for people who may be just tuning into this i might remind people that iran has 19,000 centrifuges and 10,000 are operating. they built underground bunkers so it's hard to get to it. it's hard to take those out with munitions if you will. they built it to tony m. facility. by the way much of this was done

in a clandestine way. all that was done violating u.n. security council resolutions. everyone understands fully that iran has zero practical need for any of this. iran has one, one new facility, one. everyone knows it would be so much cheaper for them just to purchase enriched uranium to fuel that one facility that you know they say no we want to be leaders and medical isotopes. just for what it's worth if iran wanted to really develop the expertise around medical isotopes they would have 500 centrifuges. we all know that the purpose of this program has not been versus civilian purposes. it's been to cause them to be a threshold of a nuclear country.

everyone knows that. every country involved in the discussion with iran knows that so first of all we know what their goals are and so what the president says in these negotiations what we are going to do is we we are going to and iran's nuclear program i think most people in this body would celebrate. he began the discussions. as he started moving along it became very apparent to those of us paying attention that what he planned to do was to enter into what is called an executive agreement. as for people who don't do what we do on a daily basis there are three ways you can enter into an international agreement. one is through a treaty which requires a two-thirds approval by this body. a treaty is interesting because it minds future presidents. it mines future congresses but the president decided that was

not the route that he was going to take. there was a second route he could take called the rational executive agreement and while it's not as strong as a treaty it does create a law that is binding on future presidents and future congresses. the president decided he was not going to go that route. the president decided that he was going to do this unilaterally through what's called an executive agreement and as we know an executive agreement is something the president can do if he chooses on his own. the problem with that is it doesn't survive his presidency. another president could do something very different. in this case however as everybody has analyzed this deal everyone understands we lose our leverage over the next nine months. we give it away and so when people in this body begin to realize that we brought iran to the table or at least played a heavy role in bringing them to the table, and when we realize

the president was going to use what's called a national security waiver to wave away all the congressional sanctions so that he could enter into this executive agreement without ever talking to us, we achieve something else that was very important. as a matter of fact it was the first time that has happened since i have been in the united states senate. there's a lot of misunderstandings about it. the first time that what congress did on a strong bipartisan basis, we took power back and we said mr. president we know that you can enter and to executive agreements and in this particular case since we put the sanctions in place that brought them to the table and by the way over your objections, we want a chance to go through this agreement in detail and we want the right to either approve or disapprove but you have to present us with this and it's got to sit before us for 60 days

as it's going to do as of tomorrow. we want the right to weigh in as to whether we believe the substance of this deal, the substance of it is something that they believe is good for our nation. we have 98 senators in this body one was absent who supported it. that's 99 but it's pretty remarkable that on a bipartisan basis 99 senators said no we want this before us because we believe that this is one of the biggest foreign-policy issues we are going to deal with. we believe that this is a vote of conscience and we believe that every senator and every house member which is unusual with these kinds of agreements should weigh in and be able to voice their opinion. and so we have gone through the deal. what is fascinating about it is, i hate to be per jordan but we had almost unanimity on putting

sanctions in place to bring to the table. we had almost unanimity on the fact that we should be able to weigh in. it's my belief, my strong belief that in the middle of the president achieving the deal that he did, the goals that he stated to end iran's nuclear program, obviously we have done anything but that had so what has happened is we have squandered, squandered, totally squandered an opportunity to unite this nation and others around ending their program and instead our nation, our nation with other quote great nations, have agreed to allow iran not only to not in the program but to industrialize it. we have agreed to let them develop intercontinental ballistic missiles so that they

can deliver a nuclear weapon. we have agreed to let them do research and development. right now they are using centrifuges which are like antiques but we are going to allow them to do research and development done they are to come at the art for and are six which we know are multiple times faster. we have let them have conventional weapons embargo then for some reason throwing it in for good measure we are allowing them for the first time to begin testing. so what has happened is now in this body there is some tepid support and i see my friend from michigan over there and i have other friends and i haven't heard anybody come out and say this is a great agreement. what they say as well you know not necessarily the senator from michigan but other saying we are where we are. we are where we are.

this is not a very good agreement. it's flawed. even though congress 200 times sent international agreements back to the executive branch, 200 times. in this case we are where we are and are france and russia. by the way anybody seeing what our friends and russia are doing now? area, they're really good friends. anyone see what china is doing right now building their third airstrip claiming territory that for thousands of years have belonged to other countries from the standpoint of territorial waters. our friends and our allies what will we do about our friends and allies? so here's where we are. i can go on and on. i just cannot believe our great nation was quote our friends from great britain and germany and quote our friends from china and russia squandered, squandered an opportunity had a

rogue nation with a boot on its neck, a boot on its neck. we squandered the opportunity and now with our approval they can industrialize their program. as a matter of fact they don't have to violate the terms of this deal. they can just honor the terms of this deal. their economy will flourish and by the way is hard for me to believe this but i think most people understand that we are giving them back $100 million of money. we are going to do that in the next nine months. we are lifting the major sanctions that have crippled them. we are doing that without us even asking them to do much. from that point on by the way the leverage shifts from us to them. we are very concerned about what they're doing in syria and by the way they doubled down on that since the agreement was reached with the nuclear file. we are very concerned about what they are doing with hezbollah in

lebanon. we are very concerned about what they are doing with olmos. we are very concerned about what they're doing in yemen with the houthis and concerned about what they are doing in bahrain where we have thousands of men and women in uniform trying to keep the strait opened. very concerned about that but in nine months if we express our concerns what are they going to do? they are going to say well we got all of our money and lifted oliver sanctions. if you press against us for terrorism, for human rights or violations in this agreement that are minor we are going to start again. it's kind of unbelievable that we are in this place. but what's happening on the floor and began to explain to the american people we have a process in the united states senate which says at the end of the debate and by the way we have had a lot of debate on this. we have had 12 hearings in the foreign relations committee alone. the presiding officer served on the armed services committee.

the intelligence committee had hearings. we have had hearings as a body in personal meetings. as a matter fact i would say this body knows more about this international agreement than any international agreement in modern times. as a matter of fact thanks to us pushing back against this administration the american people know more about this agreement and any agreement in modern times. it's an amazing thing. thank goodness we passed the iran nuclear review act. otherwise none of this would be none, none of this. so where we are today is we all said this was one of the biggest foreign-policy issues to come before us. we want the american people to know where we stand on the substance. so for people turning in here is how the senate works. when the bill comes before us and right now since there is a strong bipartisan majority of people who oppose this deal as a

matter fact the two most knowledgeable democrats on foreign-policy issues, the ranking member and a former chairman and ranking member who know more about horn policy than any democrat in this body both oppose the deal. so i'm a strong bipartisan majority we have a group of people that think we can do better. just like the 200 times plus that recent agreements back to say hey do better. we are saying we think we can do better so here's what's happening. when they built comes or of votes comes before the united states senate we have these rules. there's a rule that says they are sick cloture vote and what cloture means is people say we have heard enough about this. we believe it's time to take a vote. now i just heard the senator

from illinois say we can talk about this way too long and it's time to move beyond it. he left out a minor detail. and that is it takes 60 members of united states senate to say we have heard enough about it. it's time to move by what is happening as we have 42 members all of one party that are in the minority, 42 senators that are saying no, we are not going to allow this to move to a final vote. we are not going to do it. now we know it's not about debate. we know as a matter fact the second highest officer on the democratic side said we need to move on to other business. it's time to move on to other business. what we need to do is invoke cloture and let's vote but let me tell you what's happening here. i have said this several times, we have taken on a tammy wynette

kind of flavor. let's stand by her man. let's stand by our man. we don't want the president to have to deal with a resolution of disapproval. we want to protect him from that we don't want to embarrass him that there is a bipartisan and by the way the smartest most well-versed deep in foreign-policy on his side of the aisle agreeing with the vast majority of the senate 58 senators saying this is not good for our nation, it and by the way if this ended the program do you know what would be happening? do you would have 100 senators and let's vote to approve this. the president achieved his stated goal but since that isn't the case what we want to do is we want to send a resolution of disapproval to the president but

we have 42 senators who want one hand say let's move on and let's deal with funding government but on the other hand are not agreeing to a final vote so we have one more chance. i just want to say this. we have a lot of partisanship that happens here. let's face it, we do. i got it, it happens. i have to say on this case the majority leader has allowed me to work with my friend on the other side of the aisle. he has allowed me to move this through in an appropriate way. at every juncture when my friends on the other side of the aisle felt like something was occurring that was adding unnecessary temper or maybe something was getting out of line and we needed to alter our course of action, at every juncture the minority leader said senator corker if you think

this is the best way of moving ahead to keep the bipartisanship that i have had with senator cardin and senator menendez in so many others, have at it. i just want to remind people today though when we enter this debate as you know they're are all kinds of inflammatory and amendments that could be added to this debate. the leader filled the tree. for people in the listening audience filling the tree, what does that mean? what he did was he cap there from being anti-inflammatory amendments. i know he has filed an amendment now after two times the minority will not let us move to a final vote. i don't know but it's tougher not to vote on this thursday but the fact is the purpose has been for us to move to a final vote. and we have 42 senators over here that will not allow us to have that vote of conscience. i want to say again to those listening in the process vote of

any debate, that's not a vote of conscience. that's not a vote of conscience. a vote of conscience is when you take the final vote do you believe that this iran deal, the president's iran deal is something that is good for our country, will create stability in the region and certainly will keep them from getting a nuclear weapon? 58 of us don't think so. actually i've got to believe just listening to the comments of many of my friends when they talk about how flawed it is i think there's actually a whole lot of concerns even though sometimes understand this when you have it present of your own party sometimes it's hard to go against. i understand the pressures that come into play when that happens but where we are american people and where we are with my fellow senators is we want to move to a final vote and up-or-down vote which by the way by the rules of the senate is a majority vote.

we want to move to that. we have 42 senators who are keeping us from that and what i hope is going to happen over the course of the next 24 hours a couple of senators if you will say look, we did vote 98-1 to register our feelings about the substance of this most important agreement and we did. we really did do that and maybe it is appropriate that we on behalf of the american people not get stuck on this procedure issue, this cloture vote. we have debated this plenty. let's go ahead and move to a final vote. that is what i hope is going to happen. i am thankful that though and i do want to say one more time i think people on both sides of the aisle for having the gumption to buck the administration to put in place for causes of sanctions to get

them to the table. thank you. both sides of the aisle by the way that they senators menendez and kirk, led by the two of them one democrat and one republican. we did that together but i want to thank people on both sides of the aisle for putting us in a position to actually know what this deal is about, to have this debate to be able to weigh in and i want to say one thing or time president done what he said he would do and that is negotiate we would have 100 people supporting. we all know that. everyone knows that is not what has happened happening. we have agreed to industrialize their program. let them do research and development, let them create delivery mechanisms to make sure that they can send these nuclear warheads that they are going to be on the verge of developing a long ways across the oceans to places like america and other places. i don't know why we do that but we did and so now we just want a

chance to vote yes or no. we believe that is an agreement that will stand the test of time. is that something that is good for our country and do we believe this is really something that if iran wishes to will keep them from developing a nuclear weapon in with that mr. president i yield the floor and i look forward to the comments of my friend from michigan. >> mr. president. >> the senator from michigan. >> mr. president v12 let me agree with the distinguished chairman of the foreign relations committee that in fact we did come together on song -- strong sanctions against iran in a bipartisan way. we did come together on the process that would create legislatively a way for us to make a decision on a bipartisan basis. even though we are following through on the legislative process that we adopted it now

has become so partisan which is not good for america. it's not good for israel. it's not good for frankly the world to see this happen. so while agreeing on what the distinguished chairman said i have to disagree on many things that i will not take my time to go into them. now certainly the process we are using is no different than any other major bill, health care reform financial services reform and it was set up so we can try to make it some partisan issue now. the reality is we have thoughtfully taken a position. we have voted. everyone knows everyone's position and so now we are just in the process right now. unfortunately i believe politics which does not help us move forward for our country or for our allies. so i want to speak to what i'm deeply concerned about which is the next boat we are going to have on thursday and speak to a

very important young man who is an american hero who was caught in the politics of what is happening right now. mr. president a mirror from flint michigan is an american hero. he served his country as a marine between 2001 and 2005 in iraq and afghanistan. he served with valor. he served with honor. he was awarded the combat action the good conduct medal but this morning a mere woke up in an iranian prison. he has been in that prison for a four years 19 days. during that time he has been tortured. the prison is notorious for its deplorable conditions and while he was there his father in flint michigan has been diagnosed with terminal brain cancer.

the iranians are playing politics with amir's life. unfortunately now today the senate republican leaders are complicating his life. the imprisonment of this veteran , this american hero is being used by the senate majority leader and a transparent effort to score some cheap political points in my judgment. and it's appalling. no american should ever be used in this way. none of our hostages. this is a young man whose parents are desperately worried about his safety who have been waking up everyday for the last 1479 days hoping this would be the day, this would be the day that they would learn that their son would be freed. how does it show respect for amir's mom and dad to use their sons life and possibly threaten

the negotiations that are going on now? in order to make a partisan political point and jeopardize his release. mr. president we have had a vigorous debate on the international agreement and i know from talking to colleagues and being in many meetings that those on our side had been very thoughtful and thorough and certainly the chairman has as well in coming our -- into our positions in a highly charged and difficult situation. i spent many weeks myself and classified readings, meetings with nuclear experts in meetings with ambassadors and personally calling each of those who were involved in negotiations in the p5+1 countries, meeting with constituents in michigan who feel very passionate about this issue on both sides.

and i made my decision. the decision that i believe is best for america and for israel and our other allies. i did not make my decision on the day the agreement was announced before i had ever read it or even before it was announced regrettably as many republican colleagues in the house and senate did. so we have had a vote in the senate. we have had two boats now on this issue and today or tomorrow we will have a third boat. not to a cause for majority leader expects a different result. we have all taken our positions but because he wants to score political points and bring in as part of that vote for american hostages. and what is happening to them.

and those political points will be scored at the expense of amir from flint michigan. who has served his country honorably. mr. president i would -- have gotten to know the family and i know how much their son's freedom means to them. any of us who have children can understand what they are going through. i have personally talked with the president and other officials at the highest levels of our government who were working tirelessly to secure his release and return him to his loving family along with the other americans held hostage. this is a diplomatic mission. it's a humanitarian mission and yet the majority leader is on a political mission. it is not going to help. he wants to interfere with and

distracts the international nuclear agreement with iran. i understand that and i understand his position and others that they are willing to use amir and other american hostage in the process and that is wrong. this political stunt by the majority leader does not help bring amir home. it doesn't help bring the other three americans home. it just adds more politics to the situation. now what is very disturbing to me after always having bipartisan support, one of the things that i can always say to my constituents that when it comes to the issues around israel and the middle east we

always have been together in a bipartisan basis until now and what has happened in the last few months. unfortunately what is happening on this debate and a vote we will have tomorrow ringing in the american hostages into this debate on iran is not the first time we are seeing partisan politics interjected into this debate. and i still will never forget, never forget the 47 republican senators who wrote a letter to the supreme leader in iran the ayatollah to tell him not to pay any attention to the president of the united states. i have to say mr. president if it were reversed and it were 47 democrats everything would have halted in this chamber and it would be impeachment hearings. we would be called traitors.

it would go on and on and on. it is shocking to me. if this had happened, if we had written a letter to saddam hussein or debating going into iraq and saying don't listen to the president of the united states or anybody else for that matter, any other president, that would be a national crisis and there would be outrage and yet somehow 47 republican senators can write to the ayatollah in the middle of an international negotiation that was difficult at best when we know iran is within three months of having a nuclear weapon right now by the way. we should all be concerned about it and i know we are. we can go back and renegotiate something which will take years

but they will have enough within three months and in the middle of all of that, in the middle of all of that almost half of this chamber rights to the people who are funding terrorism and to our our opponents and enemies in terms of the ayatollah and by the way the president of the united states, don't listen to him, don't listen to him. interestingly also in that letter interestingly in that letter senator cotton said in that letter that of course would take 60 votes to pass anything in the senate which of course it does in which of course we are debating now and folks are acting like it doesn't but the ayatollah was sent a letter to senate will take 60 votes so whoever voted might want to check it with him. so here we are now seeing the ultimate politics of members in this body writing to our enemy

saying don't listen to the president of the united states. and now we are in a situation after a serious difficult emotional controversial issue where there are people serious thoughtful people on both sides because the vote is not going the way the majority wants so now they bring in the four hostages in iran. you know mr. president there is a tradition in this country when it comes to issues of national security and the lives of the men and women who serve america. and a quote was coined by former michigan senator arthur vandenberg. politics stops at the water's edge. this picture we are very proud of. it's right outside in the reception room. very few united states senators

have their portraits painted on the wall in the reception room. i'm very proud that one of those is a former republican senator from michigan. senator arthur vandenberg. he was a great nemesis against president at t.r.. he hated the new deal. he went after president roosevelt at every turn on his domestic agenda but as chairman of the foreign relations committee when we were being attacked at pearl harbor he stepped up and said politics stops at the water's edge. and for over 70 years that was the way united states of america

was operating. that's the way the senate operated. we have lost that and i am deeply concerned not as a democrat but as an american for where we find ourselves today on matters of such seriousness, international threats to our country. we can debate them, we can have differences. if someone loses the vote it becomes time to come back together and find a way to move forward to keep america strong. there are many opportunities for us to do that. many opportunities on this agreement to make it stronger, to focus on the nonnuclear sanctions and other things that we need to do together against iran. to focus on bringing our

american psalm. but this is not the way to do it create this is not the way to do it. so i stand today to reject what i view as a political stunt and the vote tomorrow is deeply concerning to me and to people in michigan who want to bring amir subtwo home. this is not politics. this is somebody's life. it's about the future national defense of our country and our allies and the world. the vote is the votes. we have taken our positions. it's time to come back together as americans. i yield the floor.

>> the senator from california. >> thank you very much mr. president. i want to thank my colleague from michigan for pointing something out today that i haven't heard before, which is that this vote that we are going to have tomorrow which is a revote on the iran nuclear agreement, adding, adding a couple of pieces regarding hostages and sanctions, regarding israel, is actually a dangerous boat, a dangerous boat and i agree with her completely it's a political vote. if you asked the people on the street what they think of congress, we are not bought a very well because the people see through this. they see through the politics of those and we have already voted on this agreement.

my friend senator corker, my chairman and i serve on that committee and proud to serve with him, he says all we want is a vote on the agreement. they gave them my vote. we wanted an up-or-down vote on the agreement and we asked for that twice with a 60 vote threshold. oh no suddenly even though senator mcconnell has said over the years every single important vote is a 60 vote threshold suddenly this is an important vote? how well i remember, how well i remember a vote cast here on climate change legislation where we got cabinet people who weren't here who said they were therefore -- were for it. we felt for vote short. would it have been nice if i want to the floor and said this is outrageous. this is outrageous. let's have a 51 vote threshold.

well we knew we needed 60. we didn't play games. we didn't play games. after we have here. we are playing games with an agreement which already has been voted on and we had enough people voting in favor of the agreement if i can say to derail the republican plan. now the railing this agreement in my view means war and i see my friend from arkansas. he was the one person who said it. let's just essentially say we can bomb this thing away. if he is honest about it, other people say just go back and get another agreement. that is code word for no agreement. that is code word for war and we

have spoken out on this very clearly. it isn't as if we don't have other issues we need to deal with. the fact is enough senators said they support the agreement to derail the effort to stop it. grow up and accept the fact and move on to use it in your campaigns. just as we will use it in our campaigns. i don't think of people in this country want another war in the middle east and i feel very strongly this is a conscience vote. so bring it up 10 times i'm not going to change my vote especially when i see playing politics has become the way my republican friends are dealing with this most sober issue. as you look on the horizon we know there are a couple of real problems facing us. the budget, the budget runs out

in 14 days. are we going to have a government shutdown because some people don't think women should have a right to choose? are we? i don't know but we have got 14 days to deal with it. why are we dealing with it? we voted on the iran agreement. it's not going to change. it's just politics as usual. people are sick of it. now let's take a look at the republican budget. the proposed senate republican budget would cut over half a billion dollars from the environmental protection agency's budget. i just came from and hearing, very important and good hearing where we looked at a horrible tragedy that happened in colorado. epa went in there at the request of the state to check whether or not this old mind that hadn't been cleaned up in generations

caused a risk of a blowout and when they started to do their t. epa was devastated with that and what our committee looked at was how are we going to move forward? well we are not going to move forward i say to my friends when we cut half a billion dollars out of the epa budget that could be used to clean up these minds. when there is a devastating blow out horrible chemicals get into drinking water supplies like cyanide, led and it destroys communities. why would we want to have a budget that cuts so much from the environmental protection agency that 80% of the people support? it's so popular. congress has soap popular in the epa is popular.

people want a clean environment. in all my years in office mr. person no one has come up to me and said the heirs to clean in the waters to clean. they say the opposite. they say you know what my kid has asthma, clean up the air or i'm worried that i can drink the water, i have to purify it. so instead of free voting on something we are devoted on and every member, it's not like anyone was hiding. we all came out. we were either for the agreement are against it and i have to say my colleagues were wonderful and explaining their positions and i was proud but i'm not proud to see us now go right back to the same thing. when we have all of these problems facing us the republican budget cuts $400 million from community health centers preventing 620 new clinics from opening and keeping 2.6 million americans

from getting preventive and lifesaving care. that's right, 400 million from community health centers. how about the prompt -- home program, the nation support of a housing program? would be practically eliminate with a 93% cut. this means a loss in production of 30,000 affordable housing units across the country. a center for disease control, we know how important they are when we have an epidemic. it would be cut by the republican budget by $245 million hurting our efforts to protect communities from diseases like ebola and the measles. we all thought the measles were gone. he came back in california and thank god for the cdc helping us when we needed them. then there is the export-import bank.

we extended its life and attached it to the transportation bill which is great, but the export-import bank expired 78 days ago and the transit hill, the transportation bill that i worked so closely with leader mcconnell on and senator inhofe and senator durbin and others it's stuck in the house of representatives and i don't know what to think about what they are doing but they need to get going and get that transportation bill into conference so we can do this. this is a bipartisan bill but instead of pushing and working on that we are recoding on an issue we have are devoted on. the ex-im bank has row consequences. ge, general electric announcer butch shift -- shipped 500 jobs overseas because of the bank's closure so anyone who tells you

it doesn't have an impact they are wrong. 500 families are suffering because the ex-im bank which we did the right thing on here in the senate it's stuck on the transportation bill over in the house and they have yet to mark their bill and i hope they will. then we have the debt ceiling something ronald reagan warned us about over and over again. don't play politics with the debt ceiling. i want to remind everybody when bill clinton was president he balanced the budget. i was here. that shows you how long i've been around. i didn't have this gray hair than. so in those years we balanced the budget, created a surplus and then what happened after bill clinton immediately we had this he meant it -- humongous tax cut for the rich and we had huge deficits under republican president george w. bush.

and thank god president obama has cut that deficit in half but we still have a debt. that is because two wars were put on the credit card and these tax cuts to the rich which caused huge deficits. so the dad kept climbing up. now we have to raise the debt ceiling to accommodate the past spending of this congress and president reagan was right, don't play politics with the debt even thinking that you will hurt our economy. the last time we played these games to cost us a fortune. and it caused huge uncertainty in the markets. so we have the budget crisis, we have the republican budget with huge cuts to programs we need like a center for disease

control. we have a transportation bill the authority for which runs out in october. we have got all of these things and yet what are we doing today? we are voting again on iran. no one in my view was going to change their mind. i was thinking maybe some of my republican friends might come over to our side and favor the agreement sense colin powell is for the agreement and richard lugar is for the agreement and john warner is for the raiment and brent scowcroft is for the agreement. these are often leading republican voices and others many others. i don't see that happening and for those people who say that it's been partisan, it has been partisan.

several democrats joined republicans against the agreement. not one republican, not one despite of the leadership on their side outside the senate joined us so the partisanship has been coming from the other side of the aisle. we are voting again on iran. maybe i thought next week we could take up some of these serious issues that i just outlined, these pressing pressing issues. the budget, the debt ceiling, the ex-im bank all these unbelievably important issues that are facing us but no, next week the majority leader has decided to take up abortion, abortion and what we are going to be faced with is a hell that says to a woman you cannot have an abortion after certain period of time. it's a ban.

no exception for the health of the woman and i want to talk a little bit about that today. the bill as it is coming forward is extreme. it's a direct attack on women, on doctors and the law of land called roe v. wade. it's unconstitutional because it offers no health exception. just bans abortion at a certain point in pregnancy with no luck section. no health exception, no help for a woman facing cancer, no help for a woman facing kidney failure, no help for a woman facing blood clots or other tragic complications during pregnancy. this is a war on women and that is what they are going to. they're not going to the debt ceiling. they're not going to the budget which must be fixed, they are not going to xm even though jobs are leaving the country.

this bill that they are taking up next week will read victimizer visors -- survivors of rape and and assume they are lying and forcing women to go through multiple medical visits to prove that they have been victimized. they would throw doctors in jail for up to five years for helping a woman after certain point in her pregnancy when that doctor knows she risks paralysis, infertility. a woman who has cancer whose life would actually be in danger if the pregnancy is continued. but don't take it from me, take it from the women who have had to have these abortions, women who desperately wanted a child like thai east from california learned that the 20 week

ultrasound there were multiple tragedies facing her baby's heart and lungs. the baby had no diaphragm which means her baby would have suffocated to death once outside the womb. you would force that woman to go through a pregnancy, not to mention the impacts on the baby. then there is emily from south carolina, a 26-year-old mother of two girls. during her third pregnancy she suddenly had extreme health symptoms including blurred vision and intense abdominal pain. after testing testing she was dd with preeclampsia was posed a serious threat to her health. under this bill she could not have been spared the risks to her health. so when we say there is a war on women we mean it.

we are not just saying words, and frankly i am confused with everything else facing us. we have such a bipartisan breakthrough on the transportation bill. i was so proud to work with the majority leader, so proud of the product that came out of that. i was proud to work with the democrats and republicans on the environment and public works committee every one of whom was involved and who supported the deal that went through. as a matter of fact we had the majority of both caucuses. why can we build on that bipartisanship? why do we have to go back to the usual corners here? it's sad and unnecessary. but you know what? we are going to be voting on iran so i want to tell you why i am backing the deal. if i have to go through it

again, i'm going to go through it again. .. ll if somebody wants to look at their past program." let's be clear. not one country in the world who's a party to a nuclear agreement has any deadline, even the united states. if there's a suspicion of a past program being hidden, you can stall it off. but not this one. you've got to let them in in 24 days or they are in breach. there's a mechanism to require iran to provide the iaea with access to the suspicious sites. the suspicious sites. there is a mechanism that 24 day limit, that is not present in

any other agreement. it requires before they receive a penny of sanctions relief. and the u.s. and our allies have the ability to snap off the sanctions. the bill that is now going to come before us for another boat talks about how we cannot lift sanctions in the steel until certain conditions are met. they ignore the fact that there is a whole another of sections in place for iran's terrorist activity. though sanctions are not touched. don't endplate the two and confuse people. there are sanctions up for nonnuclear activities which include their horrific support of terrorism, then there is

sanctions for the nuclear activities which we will be lifting if, if they agree and carry out these agreement minutes. we'll not have 1 penny lifted until they dispose of their past activity. so let's see what else i can share with you to show why i support the steel. i have to say at a time when congress was not trusted, has the worst approval rating, i'm so embarrassed by it. i have come to the point where i look at third parties to make my boat. twenty-nine of the top of our nation's top nuclear scientist, include six nobel say this is a good deal. sixty bipartisan bipartisan deal

say this is a good deal. over 100 former ambassadors say this is a good deal. three doesn't retired u.s. generals and admirals say this is a good deal. 340 euros as rabbis say this is a good deal. fifty-three christian leaders and the catholic bishops and we will be meeting the popeo next week, save, say this is a good deal. the religious leadership on the side of the steel for the most part is overwhelming. our religious people who lead us here, one piece in the world, they do not want to seen escalation of war. escalation of war. we see what war brings. we lost the iraq war more than 4000 of our people. i. i ask unanimous consent for one more minute.

>> without objection. >> this is what our allies are same. if the u.s. would walk away from the steel, international unity would disintegrate, the hardliners in iran and we would lose the most effective the path to stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon. that is a direct quote from the u.k. secretary and he speaks for all of our partners in this. 100 nations who support the steel. one hundred nations who support the steel. why would we want to stand with the hardliners in iran? they are partners with them make no mistake, the hardliners here and the hardliners in iran. if you are moderate person support this deal, i yield the floor. >> senator from arkansas.

>> i have a unanimous request for the community may have the approval of the majority and minority leaders? please request what we have agreed to and please request the printed record. >> without objection. >> i feel at times as if i have adopted my words against the nuclear deal with iran. i conveyed against the wickedness of the ayatollah, the responsibility of the deaths, hundreds of hundreds of american troops in iraq and afghanistan. their support for terror and their attacks on israel and other allies. it is the height, folly, weakness to give iran tens of billions of dollars of sanctions relief. indeed, i feel as if i can say nothing more than i have already said.

unfortunately the democrats who support the iran nuclear deal have supplied arguments against the deal. thus rather than speak myself i will simply let the democrats speak in their own astonishing words. here of the democrats and the expiration of the deal. i remain extremely concerned that after 15 years, the years, the restrictions of how much iranian iran can enrich and what level they will inspire and they will return to their status on their current status. it is concerning that iran can achieve this status without breaking the worlds appended the agreement. to be clear, 15 years iran will be allowed to be a legitimize threshold nuclear state. my fear is that 15 years from now will face iran and our fears will be legitimize. and iran iran that is fortified with new weapons and air defenses as embargoes, conventional arms and

ballistic missiles expire years from now. senator peters. i acknowledge that legitimate concerns have been raised after the first ten years of the agreement. sometimes referred referred to as the out years. during this time, iran's breakout time could shrink substantially. senator reid of rhode island. when they begin to expire in ten or 15 years a blink of an eye to a country whose made its history and millennia, our country will still have to deal with an iranian leadership that wants to build an industrial scale nuclear enrichment program. that's the big problem. none of us know what life will look like in ten or 15 years. i have deep concerns about what it will look like you this horizon. here the democrats financing

terrorism, iran will be disruptive in the middle east and fun terrorist activities. this regime will continue to deny him israel's right to exist. we'll still be listed as a terrorist organization. iran will continue to exasperate allies in the region. let's be clear, iran is a sponsor of terrorism and an abuser of human rights. this deal doesn't change that. it's certainly possible, perhaps probable that iran will uses additional resources and access to conventional arms to increase its support to terrorist groups. i do share concerns of parts of the agreement including iran could use funds from shanks and relief to continue funding has below and other terrorists around the world. it is clear they have been funding these activities despite we have a right to be concerned that additional funds from sanctions relief if this

agreement is not approved could be used to continue this outrageous activity. here the democrats on their nuclear activity and enrichment. with this deal, we aren't legitimizing are legitimizing a vast and expanding nuclear program in iran. we are in effect, rewarding years years of deception, deceit and wanton disregard of international law by allowing them to have a nuclear program beyond levels was necessary for peaceful civil nuclear program. senator booker. it is certainly possible iran will use its nuclear research to provide a foundation for future nuclear weapon program. senator. here the democrats of their adherence to the grill. iran is a bad end dangerous actor, we all agree on that, senator boxer.

critics exist that america cannot trust iran. i agree. i still have serious doubts about their governor. we night and indeed should not trust the iranian regime. emma mentation of this may be challenging and we made need to be prepared that iran will violate the agreement. when they chant death to america and death to his roots it the first question is how can we trust them to live up to an agreement? the answer is we cannot. even under the deal we should expect iran will cheat when it can. particularly at the margins, and it will continue or even ramp up its destabilizing activities and sponsorship of terrorism. conditional resources provided with sanctions relief will seek to break out in 15 years.

iran has misled us in the past when it comes to their nuclear program. what a condemnation of iran. what an indictment of this nuclear deal with iran. this indictment comes from the supporters of the deal. despite their own words, these democrats have chosen to give iran billions of dollars that will be used to fund terror, war and ultimately put iran on the path to nuclear weapons. let there be no mistake for history of the consequence of these democrats choice, when iran detonates a nuclear device, these democrats will bear responsibility. when iran launches a missile capable of hitting the united states these democrats will bear responsibility. when i ran kills more americans these democrats will bear

responsibility. when iran imprisons american hostages, these democrats will bear responsibility. when iran attacks is rail through hezbollah, these democrats will bear responsibility. when iran kills jews around the world, these democrats will bear responsibility. president obama and these 42 democrats bear a direct political, moral, and personal responsibility for the coming crimes and outrages of iran's ayatollahs. there will be grave consequences for them and for all of us. >> coming up on c-span two, epa administrator testifies about the epa's role in the hazardous spell. at the gold king mine in colorado. then a house hearing on planned

parenthood practices. that's followed by u.s. senate debate on the iran nuclear agreement. >> on the next "washington journal" we will discuss the budget deadline in congress and other news of the day. with democratic congress woman and republican. we'll also talk to steve of cq roll call about republican efforts to defund planned parenthood. washington journal, live each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> republican presidential candidate donald trump speaks thursday in new hampshire. we will live coverage at 7:00 p.m. eastern ncp c-span2. >> the pope's upcoming visit to the u.s. c-span has live coverage from washington, the first app on the pups to her. on wednesday september 23, pope francis will visit the white

house starting with a welcoming ceremony on the south one. followed by a meeting with pres. obama. on thursday, september 24, the pope makes history on capitol hill, becoming the capitol hill, becoming the first pontiff to address the house of representatives and senate during a joint meeting. watch live on tv or online and c-span.org. >> epa administrator dana mccarthy testified about the hazardous waste water spill caused by an epa cleanup team at the gold king mine in colorado. senators spoke about the impact of this bill on their home states. this environment and public works hearing is 90 minutes.

>> [inaudible conversation] >> [inaudible conversation] >> [inaudible conversation] >> we will come to order. we will hold our opening statements until we hear from

the four senators who have made a request to be here. senator gardner first called this to my attention so what we are going to do is here from you senator gardner and go across and hear from those are special concern and interest in your recognize. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding this hearing today to examine the august 5, 2015 spill that occurred on gold king mine in southwest colorado. i appreciate committee for providing us to make statements with the impact this bill has had in our states and the representatives here who will testify. this bill had a impact on the southern indian tribe and the navajo nation. from the outset of the spill, it was crucial the environment, epa focused on investigation and slowed the flow of contaminants.

water testing testing shows service water of the water has returned but many uncertainties have remained for heightened contamination in spring runoff. if you have seen pictures of recent days where you can disrupt the riverbed, you can see material still being picked up. once the national press disappears from the area there are still serious concerns that exist for colorado's. although the epa has acknowledged the magnitude initial lack of communication and events leading up to and following are suitable for congressional oversight. effective communities deserve transparency, particularly in understanding where epa was during the first hours and days following the spill. for example, the colorado department of public health was the first to notify the city of durango of the gold king release on august 5.

the colorado dnr was first to notify the southern indian tribe of the release on august 5. they closed public access to the river on august 6. the questions we must ask, where was the epa during the initial notification closer of the river? did they follow plans of notification and implementation of response to this disaster? was there anyone within the epa with crisis management ask beer and still dispatched to the area? were made aware of this bill? these are a few of the questions i hope will be addressed today. in the first days following the spell it was largely state,

local, tribal officials responding. it was not until august 10 that the august 10 that the epa established a unified command center in durango. along with a can fusion was the need for timely release of monitoring data from the epa. my personal experience with the epa is that of local communities. no one from the epa attempted to contact me until days after the spill. upon learning of the spill i attempted to speak with the administrator but was told she was unavailable. i was then told they would contact me and that came several hours later. i visited the site on august 9. this was four days after contaminants were released and yet there is no response planner team in place. it was that sunday morning briefing we're sitting with epa officials who couldn't answer basic questions, including how much water was still leaking into the river. we said that the epa should be

held at the same standards which means tough questions must be asked. when those questions get asked their must be answers. among the questions are whether the epa knew it was likely water was behind the portal and a blot was possible? whether the health and safety plan of the mind was adequate? why did it take several days of the epa to revise the contaminant water? they they originally set it was 1 million gallons and then several days later said it was 3 million gallons. how long has agency been tracking the drainage and publicly by measuring it? before concluding i request a statement from southern youth tribal been included as part of the testimony. >> without objection. >> you'll be testifying this

afternoon on the gold king mine spill. lastly i think you for being responsive during this time and while this hearing is to examine the incidence and epa's response, this bill shows a greater need for legislation that would allow good samaritans assist with cleaning up these a bit then mines across the west. i hope we can continue to work together. thank you for the opportune t to be here. i look forward to hearing the answers as we continue to address the serious situation. >> thank you senator gardner. senator bennett. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you also the ranking member for allowing us to speak this morning. it's a privilege to be here with my colleagues. mr. chairman the blowout at the mine was a disaster that affected many communities in colorado and new mexico. although epa was trying to

remediate the mine, there is no denying that they cause the spill. that is entirely unacceptable. it's also clear that the agency was slow to get water quality results are water to farmers who needed it quickly enough. when we traveled four days later after the blowout, the river was still bright orange and close to the public. the river really is the lifeblood of durango. rafting companies lost business, farmers could water crops, moms are still keeping their moms out of the water. these families deserve to have the full attention and resources of the administration committed to the cleanup. in the week after the spill we wrote to the epa and president, we appreciate mr. mccarthy listened and came to address the community. following a crisis and attempting to point fingers we

must hold agencies accountable for any mistakes that happen. as the communities recover it is critical to look at the bigger picture. identify what went wrong to make sure it doesn't happen again. we need to put this in context, the blowout released 3 million gallons of acid. the same amount was being released, and the poor mines in the air release acid into the river every year this has been going on for more than a hundred 30 years. at one point the quality was so poor it switched to a different river for their drinking supply. there than 23,000 abandoned mines in colorado including 400 in the san juan mountains.

we need solutions to address the asset mind drains coming from all of the mines. in the upper watershed we need an immediate solution. that's why we have asked for prioritization of a treatment plan. we also need to pass good samaritan legislation to encourage counties, nonprofits, nonprofits, companies to clean up abandoned mines route the west. will work with senators to establish guidelines to help them be liable. unfortunately it hasn't produced action. last year we produced a bill to give them that certainty while holding them to certain standards. we are working to introduce a bill this congress. we need to reform the mining law to make sure that companies pay due diligence to the taxpayers. thank you for holding this

hearing. >> thank you, senator udall. >> chairman and ranking member of boxer thank you very much for focusing on this issue. it it is an important issue not only for state, but also important for the in nation and the west. because this impacted the navajo nation in new mexico, i would like to recognize the president of the navajo nation. russell is seated in the row right behind the two colorado senators. they in particular have been very concerned and on top of this. he is going to testify this afternoon in the indian affairs committee. sitting back and looking at this, trying to give you the big picture as i listen to two colorado senators were looked working closely with. here you have big mining

companies who have been extracting minerals we use in everyday life. many of us believe some of these are very valuable and we need them. but who says they are entitled to pollute the sacred waters of two native american tribes, the navajo nation and the you tried. who says they should be able to pollute ranking water that our two states use on a daily basis. that really in the big picture is why we are here, to fix fix this, to make sure it never happens again, that is a big task. this has been going on for a long time. this mining and the pollution from it. people have been working on for decades. we have not been able to solve this problem or come to grip with it. in the west, rivers are our

lifeblood. our drinking water, our irrigation,. the river which was mainly polluted here in the san juan, autonomous means the river of souls, the san juan is an important part of the navajo tradition. the navajos have a saying, water is life. our hispanic community in new mexico says the same thing. water is life. we all know how important water is to the west and to all of us. this is a disaster on many levels to our water, to our economy, our culture. i very much appreciate working with this committee and with the senators to try to get to the root of what we need to do. i appreciate very much as a two

senators have said, epa taking responsibility for the spell. we all know mistakes were made, there were delays in notification, confusion across three different epa regions. there is delays in testing and providing much-needed water for irrigation. the epa has reese accepted responsibility here also. at the same time, the epa is not the only responsible party. what happened at the mine is part of a much bigger problem. abandoned mines in the west are a ticking time bomb, slowly leaking hazardous waste into our streams and rivers. the mine owners who left this mess are no longer around. epa is not in the mining business, it's in the cleanup business. to show you the wake-up call that all of us are facing, there

are ten mining projects similar to this that epa analyzed and said they believed their similar conditions. ten of these mines, the work has been suspended so we can see something similar like this happening. three are in california, for in colorado, two in montana and one in missouri. this is a big national issue and it needs to be addressed. let me finally say one of the key parts of this which we all have been battling for a long time is the 1872 mining law. that law continues to allow mining corporations to take hard rock minerals like gold, silver, uranium from public lands without pain any royalties. zero royalty. meanwhile coil, oil and yes companies pay royalties for many

decades. senator has been working on this for a long time. i will be working closely with him to make sure we put in legislation very soon on that. very much appreciate once again, to holding this hearing. >> senator heidrick i want to thank you for holding this important hearing today. i want to thank all of my colleagues here as well as the president of the navajo nat important hearing today. i want to thank all of my colleagues here as well as the president of the navajo nation for the work they have done to shine a light on this and begin dealing with policy issues that require legislation issues. we have had a good team effort from colorado and new mexico delegation. last month, a large plume of

bright orange mind waste and i will give credit to pres. mugabe for sharing this photo with us, you can can see him in the foreground. it spilled into the samet creek and then into the animus river and then into the san juan. it polluted the entire four corners region. i share the enormous anger and frustration over this terrible incident. when i toured the affected areas following the spell, i visited with impacted residents including farmers in places like aztec, as well as san juan leaders and mexico and navajo nation president. in the southwest, water is our most precious resource. you can imagine the impact this disaster has had on our community in colorado, new mexico, navajo nation, and arizona. take a look at this photo.

i have demanded the epa act with a sense of urgency. this must be our first and our top priorit@ ar and oversignew of the epa's response is completely warranted and appropriate. we must also look over the horidn and take action to address the hundreds of thousands of similarly contaminated mines that littered the west and are leaking toxins into our watersheds. their estimates that 40% of western watersheds have been polluted by tctiic mining ways. reclaiming and cleaning up abandoned mines across the west could cost upwards to $72 billion. i want to share with you a couple of maps. colorado and new mexico.

as you can see from these maps, thto th show all of the abandond hatht rock mines and the waters impacted by hard rock medals. you can see in southwestern colorado, for example, where the goal king minus, there are literally thousands of on reclaimed hatht rock mines. if you look at new mexico, you'll see a similar state. if you look across the west, the mad mi would not be dissimilar. in 1975, in a larger accident than the goal king blowout, near silverton spilled 50000 tons laden with tctiic heavy metals into the animus river watershed. in 1979 a breach dam nurture

truck new mexico, on the navajo nation sent more than 1000 tons of solid radioactive waste and 93 million gallons of acidic liquid into the river. for decades before the spill last month it leaked heavy metals into samet cresâ over the last ten years and and average of 200 gallons of highly polluted water per minute, or more thansee 00 million gallons per year have flowed out of this mind and into the river. beyond the immediate cleanup of the spell it is time we overhaul our abandoned mine cleanup policies. we need to make future disasters like this less likel@ ar while resources like oil, natural gas, and coal all pay royalties to return of fate value to taxpayers, hard rxak

mining companies can still mind valuable roles for free. a comprehensive approach to refouan should include the establishment of a hard rock reclamation fund. funded by a fair royalty. in a comprehensive survey of abandoned mines and a plan to clean them up. i appreciate the value of hard rock mining and what it means for families. my father and my mother's father father both made a living in this industr@ ar the industry continues to prfouide good paying jobs throughout the west. passing long, overdue reform to our federal mining law, which has nyou' been updated since 182 is critical if we want to address the root cause of this disaster. >> thank you senator heidrick

and for all have come to express your feelings. we are very much concerned avalt this. you are free to leave but you are invited to stay if you're able to do that. at the time of the spill the epa contractor was investigating the amount of water that wasn't behind the clad mi interests of the mine. epa authorize authorize the investigation as part of the cleanup action to address acid mine drainage from the nearby mines. based on the committee's oversight today it is clear epa new there is likely to be a significant amount of water behind the collapse entrance and there was a risk of a blowout. given these facts it's nyou' clr why they did not exercise more care when working at the site. epa has said it has e be or they

spent $8 million responding to this bill. thankfully no one was killed or injured by the blowout but a number of important questions remain unanswered about what led to the spell and how epa responded. since the bill epa has conducted an evaluation of the causes and asked the department of interior t an independent investigation and report his findings later next month. i question whether the interior department has the es, aertise t thisary to conred review. the epa office of inspector general is also requesting a review of the spell. i'd like to thank mccarthy for agreeing to testify today. it's important we hear directly from the top official avalueut what t the spell. particularly sent some comments were made by senators today. she may want to respond to some of those accusations.

i like to know the area of the blowout oiewurred is a historic mining district in colorado where local groups were working with the state of colorado and epa to address impact of acid mine training from other sites for years. when i was chairman of this community in la006 we passed a bipartisan bill that would have promoted the cleanup of the sites by good samaritans. in the years since this issue as received little attention from congress for this committee. as chairman for the second time i look for to working with my colleagues and i think we will do what should have been done ten years aes a. 87 thank you. 87 i want to thank my colleagues so much for coming here today. and of course es, aress my strog

feelings for this issue. i know we have a problem in california and you have experienced it firsthand. precid like to nyou'e the mayorf the city of durango, mary brookie said the following front of the house commi invee. it is tented in in times of crisis to point fingers and place blame, attempts to blame single agencies or individuals are pointless and irbore the scale and complexity of the problem that needs to be aiewuressed. i want to point out the mayor of red ango said that. i hope this doesn't turn into a finger-pointing deal because it does@ yot make any sense. it is important to us to really understand the root causes of the blowout at the mine. so future aiewidents can be

prevented and i hope that is the point of this hearing. epa has beritn the process of improving its mine cleanup activities. they've conducted a quick internal review, and and new ritidance based on lessons learned so far. they are not stopping the other investigations. there are two ones aing independent investigationsnyone. one by the department of interior and one by the epa inspector general. those reviews are important and i look forward to reading both of them and implemented what thto th say. it is important to understand that i said mine drainage is not a new problem. it has plagued thoh mh watershed in colorado for nearly a centur@ ar in in fact epa was at the site at colorado's request to help find solutions to the pr exlem of acid my contamination. the the mines leak more than 330 million gallons into the animus river each year.

that issee 00 times more than te spill.

we need to work to pass reforms that ensure the taxpayers. these are pose a serious threat to water raise that people use for recreation. mine waste frequently contains high levels of dangerous heavy metals including mercury, lead arsenic, cyanide and other hazard chemicals used to mine operations. in california we have 47000 abandoned mines. nationwide there are over 500,000 abandoned hard rock mines.

yet the federal government is barely making a dent. i can pontificate colleagues on both sides on how bad this is, unless we spend some dough on this we are going to face more of these terrible disasters. epa spends an average of $220 million per year, the bureau of land management spends 5 million to 10 million respectively. president obama's budget administration proposes reinstituting the superfund tax so polluters pay for cleanup. they propose creating a fee on hard rock mining, unfortunately we fail to act. congress has failed to act. yes we are holding holding this hearing, i import, i think my chairman. i think it is totally and

completely appropriate. i asked that the rest of my statement be included in the record, let's step up to the plate. let's not point fingers, let's get something done and stop these disasters from happening in the future. >> thank you, we now welcome to the table the administrator. while she is coming in let me share on the basis of arrivals the republican side will be. >> that should be glassman, cardin, and marquis.

>> clark is not even here. >> administrator mccarthy give us your opening statement. you have heard a lot of comments being made by others and will give you a chance to respond. >> thank you, good morning. i'm gina mccarthy the administrator of the epa and i thank you for the opportunity to appear today and to discuss the august 5 gold king mine release and subsequent response. this was a tragic and unfortunate incident and epa has taken responsibility to ensure we clean it up appropriately. the epa core mission is to ensure a clue environment and

dedicated to continuing to do so. our job is to protect the environment and we will hold ourselves and continue to hold ourselves to the same high standards that we demand of others. epa was at the gold king mine on august 5, conducting an investigation to assess mine conditions so that we could dewater the mind pool and assess the feasibility for the mine remediation. why excavating, the bedrock crumbled and expired smedley 3 million gallons discharged from the mine into cement creek. epa in colorado officials informed jurisdiction of within hours before it reached drinking water intakes and notification to other downstream continued the following day.

in the aftermath of the release, we initiated an internal review of the incident and we released an internal review summary report which includes an assessment of the events and potential factors that contributed to the gold mine incident. the report provides observation and conclusions and recommendations that are regents should consider applying when conducting ongoing and planned site assessment investigations and construction and removal projects and similar sites across the country. epa will implement all recommendations from the report and shared with external reviews. in addition to internal reviews their external reviews, the goal is to provide epa and analysis of the incident that took place, including contributing causes.

both internal and external reviews will help inform epa for ongoing plan site assessments, investigations, constructions, and removals. one of our priorities to keep the public informed and our response activities. we have closely corn aided with officials in colorado, mexico, utah, the navajo nation's and others to keep them apprised of water and sediment results which are routinely posted on our website. these results indicate that water has returned to preevent conditions and supported local and state decision-makers as they made the decision to lift water restrictions. finally i want to clarify that epa was working with the state of colorado to take action at the gold king mine to address the potential to of a catastrophic pick release it and

the adverse impacts caused by the significant mine discharges. based upon 2009 to 2014 flow data, approximately 330 million gallons of contaminated water was being discharged from those mines in the watershed each year to the cement creek. that is 100 times more that is 100 times more than the estimated release on august 5. epa was and continues to work with colorado, the stakeholder group to address these significant discharges that are impacting these waters. it's important to note that all across the country or superfund program has successfully cleaned up more than 1150 hazardous waste sites and successfully responded and provided oversight to thousands of actions to

protect human health and environment. all of the affected residents of colorado can be assured that epa has an we will continue to take responsibility to ensure that the gold king mine release gets cleaned up. thank you mr. chairman, that concludes my statement. i'm statement. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. let me try to stake out what your position is so that others can address that position. both the epa and the contractor knew there is a risk of a blowout at the gold king mine, in hindsight do you agree the epa should have spent the time and money to do the necessary engineering and water pressure tests before work began the? >> just yes or no.

>> sir my position is the state of colorado, the river stakeholder group knew it, was in the work plan, where there because of the danger of the blowout. >> okay so your answer is no. did epa designate the cleanup here as time critical to cut corners and avoid having a detailed engineering study. >> no sir, we did not. >> white didn't the epa ask a federal agency that does not have a conflict of interest, a lot of concern about a conflict of interest, with the doi. why didn't you address one of them as opposed to the doi question mark. >> it's important for us to remember we have also put on hold other similar mining responses, many of which are

time critical. we went to doi because they have the expertise, there bring in the army corps in, we believe they're independent and their independent and they will give us an independent assessment. as you know there are others investigating the incident. >> so you're saying the doi, those who are saying would have the doi would have conflict of interest is inaccurate. >> i believe there is no conflict of interest. >> i am not aware of recent problems with our office of management. >> lastly, senator bennett made the statement there is no denying the epa cause this disaster. senator gardner in his statement complained that you were not available for some period of time, your schedule did to be to

discuss this. >> well sir, we have taken full responsibility with question. i was there on the 12th and 13th. the original response was quite hectic and ongoing. i certainly didn't want my presence there to confuse the situation. i'm not aware the senator reached out to me in any way prior to that and i didn't respond to right away. >> did you hear his statement that he made. >> i do not hear his statement. >> you might want to look at that. >> another very important while you the department of justice recently told the federal court that epa would submit the bot no carbon rules to the federal register by september 4 and publication would occur by late october. did the epa submit the rules to the federal register by september 4 question mark. >> i'm sorry sir i don't have

those numbers in my head. i didn't expect this question. >> was significant though that was the deadline that was given and whether you provided that deadline. >> i don't have the exact date. >> do you have staff sitting here who could answer that question. >> we can certainly get you the answer as quickly as possible. i do not have my office staff here given my subject matter of the hearing. >> are you aware delaying publications till october interferes with congress to challenge the rules before the big show. >> sir i am aware both you and i want this to get into the federal register as soon as possible. >> thank you senator. administrator mccarthy i want to point out senator and it did price you for being available.

so there is confusion once said you were, the other said you were. so moving on. >> i certainly had a conversation with senator gardner. i'm. >> the superfund law calls for epa to issue rules requiring certain industries to provide financial instruments is for cleanup so that taxpayers are not on the hook. in 2009 epa identified hard rock mining industry as the first class facilities requiring financial assurance rules. in other words, they would they would be there should their action cause a problem. epa is undertaking this rulemaking but now you're under court order to finish that rule by december 2017. can you describe the steps epa is taking to ensure these critical rules are promulgated according to the court schedule. >> we have also committed to an

august 2016 draft, prior to that draft we intend to work with our federal agencies so we can be assured the financial responsibility role will be as accurate as it can be in terms of how much responsibility those parties should take first cleanup. also how best to ensure financial responsibility will be solid and appropriate. >> how will these rules help insure taxa payers are not on the hook for future cleanup? >> my understanding is that we have an ability to require financial responsibility for our existing and new active sites. the challenge for us, these legacy sites that we are talking about like gold king mine, where we do not have a responsible party that we can lean to, that

we will not be able to address those issues with this particular rulemaking. >> in response to the gold king mine spell, deep you issued a stock work order stop work order and you requested a review of whether those sites were a potential for a blowout similar to what happened at the gold king mine. i want want to thank you for that. clearly we don't want to play russian roulette with these mines. i understand the review has resulted in suspension of cleanup at ten sites including three in california and four in colorado. again i appreciate your quick action to identify other sites that could present a concern. can you describe what action epa is taking to assess the potential risk at the sites? >> you're absolutely right, we were very concerned any similar situation learned from the

independent review that is being done from doi before they proceeded. we have identified as best we can, all of the sites that epa is engaged and which is a small fraction of the sites you want to look at. it is over a couple hundred, we are looking at similarities between this angle king mine incident. we are allowing sites to proceed where there is imminent hazard. if there is not we are waiting for the review to be done so we can make sure similar sites learn the lessons that we are going to learn on the basis of what happened at the gold king mine. >> thank you. i i think that is very commonsense and wise. one concern raised about cleanups of abandoned mines of good samaritans is who will be responsible if something goes wrong during the cleanup? this is my concern. i love the fact that people

could come forward and cleanup, but who pays if things go wrong? and something could easily go wrong. if good samaritans are not responsible, who would be on the hook for those costs? would it not be taxpayers question ark. >> it would be. >> that is why i think it is critical we work together to come up with rules that make sense but not have a situation where they just go in there. if epa made this kind of mistake, and i know it it weighs heavy on your heart, that epa's in there and look what happened. now a good samaritan comes for without any expertise and it could happen again. we have to be very careful about it. i want to say the obama administration has proposed reinstating the superfund and establishing a fee on hard rock mining.

>> ..