dealing with the dodd-frank┌ty legislation. the financial regulations. the rules committee should get underway shortly. live coverage here on c-span 3. just a note about our coverage from heritage. we will have more tomorrow from heritage, so look at c-span.org for our coverage schedule. and the speeches that you saw today, be able to see those on c-span.org as well. the u.s. house is gaveling in at this moment, this afternoon, they will take up a bill that will ask the veterans affairs department to evaluate mental health care, and a program for psychiatrists who serve the va. the senate is in at 5:30 this afternoon, they will have a procedural vote on moving forward with the bill approving the keystone xl oil pipeline coming at 5:30 eastern you can follow that on c-span2, the house passed its keystone bill

last friday afternoon. also, news from the campaign trail and capitol hill this afternoon, from paul ryan's office issuing a statement saying that after giving it a lot of thought, i've decided not to run for president. this is paul ryan of wisconsin, saying our work over the next few years will be crucial to moving america forward. and my job as chairman deserves undivided attention. that's out this afternoon from congressman paul ryan of wisconsin. the house rules committee gaveling in shortly, live coverage here on c-span3.

members of the rules committee coming into the meeting room for their session this afternoon on a couple bills. one of which would delay the implementation of the dodd frank -- of the volcker rule. that's maxine waters on your screen, she's the ranking democrat on the house financial services committee. and probably here to testify against that legislation. that portion or version of this legislation came up last week in the house under you is spejs of the rules. they failed to get the two thirds vote needed necessary to pass. there's the chairman, pete sessions, it should get underway shortly.

the rules committee comes to order, and thank you very much. we're going to go ahead and get started. i know we have a lot of business before the rules committee. i note that at least one person is appearing to be forthright in their support of ohio state today. we assume the gentlemen is

welcome. judge hastings wants to make sure he gets whatever you're handing out there. >> the rules committee will consider three important bills, and i'd like to begin by addressing the last of these three bills. the department of homeland security appropriates hr-240 will provide for $39 billion in discretionary funding for the current year fiscal year for the department of homeland security. the bill reflects a commitment to defeating terrorism putting our homeland in better position protecting it, and the men and women who do that every day for the united states of america. responding to national disasters and perhaps more importantly making sure we take care of the salaries of the men and women whose lives are dedicated to keeping our nation safe and who every day are in cold and lonely and probably dangerous places across the border across our

boards. northern and southern ports and our borders. in addition, amendments to this committee address the president's executive amnesty and provide us with the opportunity to hold him accountable for his actions. in december, i worked closely with my republican colleagues to ensure that the united states house of representatives would position itself to fight strategically against the president's executive actions. that time has now come. today is the day. just as we have promised in the middle of december. the house of representatives will not stand i'dly by as any president ignores the requirementses of the constitution. it is the role of congress to write the laws that govern our nation and is the president's job to fatefully execute those laws. not to make them up as we go along, it is inappropriate and unconstitutional for the president to ignore this virmt.

further, the president's actions are unlawful unwise and unconstitutional. and through these amendments, the house will demonstrate that it takes the constitutional roll that we have very seriously. policies must uphold the rule of law, and our nation's sovereignty. and the work being done by our members will reflect these priorities, and i appreciate so much work that has been put in on this issue. next hr-37, it's a common sense package of bills that reduces unnecessary regulations, and makes it easier for business to create better paying jobs. hr-185 provides regulatory reform for businesses and regulators so they can spend less time and money on red tape and more time and money on things that matter, like growing their companies, expanding their operations and hiring new

workers. the hearings will go in the following order, we'll hear from the financial services committee, chairman garrett and miss waters. on hr-37. then we'll hear from chairman goodlatt. i'm not sure who's going to show. and then we'll close our testimony from judge carter on hr-240. i want to thank everybody for their testimony today also, without objection the committee will hear testimony from judge carter of texas and miss waters of california at the appropriate time. we appreciate them taking time to be here. without objection, anything either of you have in writing will be entered in the record. i defer to the gentlemen, the opening statement. >> i'm going to be brief. on hr 137 and 185, the administration has issued veto threats, we'll go through this exercise and it will go where it usually goes.

probably nowhere. and on the issue of the department of homeland security appropriations act. i mean, i give chairman rogers and the ranking member credit for negotiating the agreement. given all the terror threats around the world the instability in the world the fact that the leadership of this house would hold that bill hostage, the politics to me represents an all time high in recklessness and stupidity i can't believe we're doing this. i would recommend that we bring a clean bill to the floor approve it, and then have these political battles on another form. not playing around with the funding for the department of homeland security. i look forward to the testimony of those who are here, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> appreciate the feedback. we have two important guests today. we want to welcome you, miss waters, as always, you know this, we're delighted that you're here with us today. your testimony is important to this committee your opportunity

to be here is really something that we value very much. mr. garrett, i met with you a few minutes ago in my office and talked with you about how important this package of bills are that have passed the house of representatives, with vast majorities of people who on a republican and democrat basis have indicated their support for this, we're trying to become efficient and getting things done that have been stalled in the united states senate were delighted. the gentleman's recognizes. >> let me begin by thanking the chairman. thank you for your hospitality, and thank you and all the members of the committee for the hard work and late nights you put in here. also thank you for the extended hospitality of mr. stivers as well. for refreshments. >> thank you. >> and in light of all your late nights i will be brief on this, i'd thank the chair for bringing

up the bill that is before us right now. the promoting job creation and reducing small business act doing so ensures the rule goes through swift passages. now that i see there's a reward at the end of my comments. last congress, the chairman and myself, my colleagues on the capital markets committee decided to try to prioritize our federal security laws, so we can make some minor changes into the law. we saw it to free up valuable resources for many of our nation's small businesses. so they can better grow our economies and create jobs. how do we do that? after several hearings and two dozen witnesses the committee has passed many pieces that have broad bipartisan support. the legislation before us today, embodied many of the most bipartisan pieces of the

proposals that we have developed. each one of these titles receives significant if not unanimous support at the committee level. also, each one of these titles already passed the full house of representatives in a bipartisan way at either standalone bills and as part of broader packages as well. now, you may hear some revisionist history by some of our colleagues, let me make the facts clear. these provisions have been vetted, they enjoy a safe bipartisan support. and they will reduce regulatory burdens on small businesses and community bank. as much as i wish we were here today to do otherwise this is not a dismantling or unwinding of one of the most significant barriers to economic recovery and job creation. it is not there. we'll spend a lot of time talking about dodd frank's destructive impact on the competition in the marketplaces, it's fixation of too big to fail, and also of repairing its

overall ineffectiveness and striking a balanced regime. mr. chairman, this bill does not attempt to address those problems at all. it can be easily fixed and fixed as i said in a very, very bipartisan manner. with that i encourage your support and i guess i will just use 10 seconds to go -- mr. mcgovern's comment. i share your concern with regard to the president issuing a threat of a veto. it's always my hope that this congress should act and let our voice be heard it has been heard in the past, in a bipartisan manner. and we would hope that the president would hear that, and be willing after this, if it passes the house in a strong bipartisan matter, that he would be willing to extend a hanned to work with us on passage on all

or some of this legislation. with that, i yield back. >> thank you very much, i appreciate your testimony, and your view of time and efficiency. i want to welcome miss waters. glad you're here. i notice you didn't take the bait on the ohio state cookie yet. >> not tonight. >> well mr. stivers will i'm sure you understand that, you just have better taste. the gentleman is recognizes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and committee members for allowing me to speak today. a hastily compiled package that makes a dozen changes to the dodd frank reform act with little understanding of the ramifications. mr. chairman following last week's unsuccessful attempt to slip this measure through the house with no opportunity for debate or amendment i'm hopeful this episode has made clear that

such substantive bills should be brought up only after being given an opportunity to robustly debate them, that's why i'm still disappointed that this legislation has been rushed to the house floor during the second week of session without a hearing or a markup in the financial services committee. our committee has nine members who have not had the opportunity to carefully consider this package and determine its impact. in fact, mr. chairman. our committee hasn't even had its first organizing meeting and we're rushing this package which will directly benefit some of the wealthiest banks and corporations in america to the house floor without the opportunity to hear expert testimony or offer amendments. since this bill has bypassed this important committee process, i surely and sincerely hope there will be an open rule where all germane amendments are admitted and allowed to vote. members have submitted about a

dozen amendments to this package package, gauze it contains a number of bad provisions including some not previously considered by this house, for example, it contains a provision, that restricts the amount of information that a private company must provide to an employee, that receives compensation in the form of stock which hurts our nation's workers by denying employees the rate to understand how much their conversation is worth. and the risks associated with that compensation, this provision may be downright harmful to these employee investors. but the most alarming and substantive change -- substantial change is additional relief for a particular type of risky financial instrument from the volcker rule a cornerstone of dodd frank, the house pushed relief for holders of so-called collateralized loan obligations referred to as clo's, until 2017

of after that vote the federal reserve did exactly what the republicans wanted. it grandfathered existing clo's so the provisions wouldn't apply until 2017 a delay which amounted to three years of relief. though republicans and big banks got what they wanted, they are asking for more in this bill which will provide another two years of relief for the biggest banks by delaying volker's representation to 2019, nearly a decade after dodd frank was enacted. the volcker rules positions are simple. volcker is even more important following last december's republican effort to ram through a repeal of the so-called swaps pushout rule, by attacking it to

a must pass spending vehicle in the dead of night. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are hoping that they can just keep delaying the implementation of wall street reform assuming the public has forgotten just how bad the financial crisis was. and by continuously asking for more, they have undermined any of the good faith they have existed to smooth the transition under dodd frank. if that wasn't enough, it harms consumers and hands a big win to wall street by the sec, the commodities future trading commission and many others. the bill requires them to conduct cost benefit analysis skewed in favor of special interests like big wall street banks. not only would these provisions limit wall street shares it would tie up the already insufficient resources and put them at greater risk of

litigation for every action they take. for example, this year the cfpb will issue rules on everything from payday lending and student loans to debt collection. if passed, this bill would jeopardize those consumer protections, leading service members, veteran as and students vulnerable. while bad actors tie the cfpb up in court for years. it comes at a time when house republicans want to hold funding flat, despite new responsibilities and even more complex financial system with our economy still recovering from the $14 trillion financial crisis, we cannot afford to destroy crucial reforms and hamstring our financial regulators under the guise of so called job creation. i thank you for allowing me to speak before you today, mr. chairman. i would ask that all of these amendments be made in order.

thank you very much. >> thank you very much. mr. garrett, there's been a -- looks like a conflict of what we're really doing here today. we're trying to rush this bill to the floor. we're trying to go in and make things better for special interests. we're trying to do a whole lot of things that really sound very negative and yet all of these provisions have been heard, lots of hearing ss been on the floor and we previously passed these. can you shed some light on -- gentleman hold just one second. gentle woman -- please. >> -- on the floor, right? >> well, it didn't receive two thirds. >> it didn't pass, that's why we're here. >> it met the -- >> it doesn't mean everyone's learned to love it.

>> the threshold is a little bit different on that. >> yes, i do. >> we got the votes, i know that. >> that's why we're here. >> it's all the rope you need. >> we'll keep doing that. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> so the ranking member raised some concerns that she has, and others have raised. let's see what the record states. one of them was dealing with additional information and what information should be available. that was one of my bills that was on the floor. that was a bill that simply says going-forward to try to streamline the process, you should have a summary page on the very first of the documents that would make it easier to find the information. that bill actually passed, it passed the house by a vote. another point she raises with regard to the volcker rule. i assume she's referring to

hr-5167. providing banks with opportunities as she was raising there, that was brought to the floor as well, and it pass eded the house. i can run down the list. there were a total of 11 separate bills that passed. 864, this passed the house 411 to 12. second bill was 54-71. it passed by the vote. the next bill came and passed the house vote by 417-4. the next bill was by brian higgins rs that passed the house, 422-0. another one 420-2. out of committee. passed the committee 56-0. i can continue to run down they

passed almost unanimously in each case. but as the chairman said before the bills then went over to the senate the senate is where all good bills go to die even if they pass overwhelmingly in support here in the house. we're beginning the new year saying let's take these bills that passed overwhelmingly. and let's have the senate maybe take them up again, see what they do with them, hopefully pass them on to the white house. >> that was exactly what i would have said in preparations for this hearing, we did understand it was a bipartisan agreement not just to do these bills, but repeatedly on the floor. if i could i would like to back up just for a second. i see mr. sherman has arrived. who intended to be the other

persian who wished to speak on the bill. i know mr. sherman is a good friend of mine please hurry also. i understand you're under some time constraint. could i have you come join us up at the table mr. sherman? rather than going through a separate panel. we would like to include you. i know i had already gone to open questions to the first person, i'd like to defer to you now. >> can i ask mr. sherman to take these away from me, because i'll finish them before they -- >> well my goal is to become a heavyweight on capitol hill and these will help. anything you have objection to will be on the record. >> mr. garrett went through the list. i have an amendment at the desk, it is a short amendment strike

title eight. mr. garrett went through the list and he told you that every one of these bills had either passed the house or had passed the committee overwhelmingly. now, title 11 passed our committee only 36-23. you may want to take another look at that at least it was discussed at committee lit's zero in on title 8. never discussed at the committee no hearing at the subcommittee full committee. never marked up at the subcommittee, the full committee. snuck in among 10 other provisions that had received house approval or committee approval, there it is. snuck in. is that the way we're supposed to do business in this house? i don't know if title 8 is good national policy or bad national policy i'd like to have

hearings, a markup i'd like to consider it. but what does it do? it extends until 2019 an exception from the volcker rule. i don't have to tell you the rule is a very important part of dodd frank. not only does it extend the deadline until 2019. it takes some of the deadline that hasn't been extended that the regulators had already extended for three years this extends it two more. as to another group of collateralized loan obligations the regulators haven't extended this at all. it's a two or five year extension on when banks have got to comply with the volcker rule with regard to collateralized

loan policies. it may be spectacular policy how are we 'spossed to know. the house never considered this the committee never considered it, at least if you believe in this process, give us a chance to strike title 8 on the floor and then you can come up and tell us as the gentleman from new jersey has, that this is a collection of 10 bills that have received committee attention and support in one krascase rather overwhelming support otherwise, don't allow us to be forced to vote on 10 provisions that have been considered by the committee or the house and one sneaky one that hasn't. >> thank you very much mr. garrett? >> gentleman from california has one of the better attendance

rates of the committee. and i commend him on that he may, i can't say for sure, whether he was there or not but the committee did have hearing on the clo's. >> the general -- >> to your point saying we've never had a hearing, never discussed it that's incorrect we have had that discussed before you came in, the ranking member raised this issue already, i pointed out that the topic that the legislation that grew out of that legislation actually passed committee came to the floor and passed the house by voice vote, so we've had hearings, it's come to the floor before passed by voice vote before. there's been unanimous support the problem is not in the house

where we have bipartisan support, the clo bills provide for $300 billion worth of financing for small and medium sized businesses, we do not want to cut that off. we want small businesses to have that availability of credit so they can grow and provide jobs. the problem is in the other house and chamber. if we give them opportunity maybe they will pass it by voice vote or large numbers like it has been in the house. >> does the gentlemen seek time? >> yes we do. >> we voted on a bill to extend the deadline to 2017. now we're week told that's the same as extending the deadline to 2019. two years matters, the regulators have already extended most of this deadline for three years the question is does two years matter? and as to whether we had hearings on this we did not discuss 2017 versus 2019, we never voted on whether the

deadline should be 2017 or 2019. we never voted in the house whether the deadline should be 2017 or 2019. two years on a matter of this importance certainly matters, you can't go to the floor of the house and say, we've already considered this. especially here when the regulators, you may say well, three years, five years, what's the difference? the regulators have already extended it for three years, the only question for legislation is those other two years that's the question, we've never voted on that question not in committee, not on the floor as to whether we've had hearings, our hearings are wide ranging and i'm sure somebody mentioned this as a possibility, certainly there was no focus on july 21 210 as being the deadline for extending this, and that's something that deserves committee attention.

>> thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman i thank my colleagues for being here today and the effort they put in to getting this bill asked. no questions i yeel back. >> thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman, i have one i'd like one of you to give me some idea as to why you think the extension for two more years is appropriate and what you intend to do in that amount of time other than kill dodd-frank. >> i look forward to learning the answer to that at hearings. >> at where? >> when we have a hearing and we have a markup. maybe the date should be july 20th 2019 or 2018 or 2017 we had never had a chance to offer amendments in the committee as to what the deadline should be. >> do you have comments from regulators as to why they would

like a different deadline? >> we had a hearing specifically on this topic and it wasn't just a passing comment as far as the timing, the timing was specifically discussed in the hearing. >> the who h two-year 350erd to 2019 was 2017 with a two-year extension with the regulator authority. the 2019 was discussed in the hearing, whether the gentleman from california remembers that that was part of the record, that was discussed and actually in the legislation allowed for that extension period of time. why is this important toll your main question? as i said before, we are talking about a $300 billion avenue of financing for small businesses. when the initial proposals came out. there was and i have it here somewhere, the impact upon the valuation of the clo's was

significant and dramatic that is why there was a reason, and the regulators agreed that you needed to push back the period of time for them. in other words, if you all of a sudden say that something that you own can't be owned by you any more, that you have to sell it right away the value of that commodity will go down, because the purchaser's of it realize we're in a fire sale situation, that is what occurred with the clo's, we had a hearing on this it was discussed, debated. we had witnesses and that would be it. >> do you have any information from the regulators did they request two more years? >> the regulators were the ones who initially said we could do it in a shorter period of time, the witnesses that we had here indicated that we needed to do it for the reasons i said in a

little longer period of time this is with the authority under the bill that passed the committee. that is what the bill here will allow for. >> my question was do you have any written material or anything regulators are ask for? >> i don't have any more materials. >> you have nothing? >> right. >> no communication with them? >> we have had communication. >> on the two-year extension in addition to the three-year extension? >> yes, and that's what the original period of time in the legislation that he was talking about for. >> did you all see it? >> yes, ma'am. >> there was a question from our republican colleagues to have a colloquoy on the floor about

this. we used. there was an attempt to get a colloquoy going that while 2017 was the extension was being pushed that 2019 from your point of view would have been a more acceptable, and we refused to engraj in that at all. >> okay. >> the gentleman from new jersey talks about the importance of giving banks time to divest that which they already own. there's another sneaky word in this amendment. it says, issued before not purchased before issued before january 31 2014 as crs and it's sidebar issued on january 9th indicates. what that will mean is that a bank may purchase one of these offending instruments or instruments you're not supposed to hold under the volcker rule.

this year or next year. and then they don't have to divest themselves of it until 2019. this is not just an extension by which you have to sell that which you happen to buy before we pass the bill. or before january 31st 2014. this amendment allows you to buy it now and hold it for five years. >> let me ask you unanimous consent to but the administration's policy. let me read a bit from it. the consumer protection act is helping to prevent the kinds of financial risk taking that left millions of americans unemployed and resulted in trillions of dollars in lost -- these reforms protect the hardworking families in everything.

saving for retirement the ability of small businesses to access credit through a stable financial system 37. hr 37 unnecessarily puts these working and middle class families at risk while benefiting wall street and other special interests. >> if the president were presented with hr-37 his senior advisers would recommend he would tow the bill. no further questions. >> thank you very much mr. cole. >> thank you. it's good to see my colleagues again. this is ground we'd trod very well and i have no need for questions. >> i want to thank everybody for coming to testify, i think both sides have made their arguments i side with mr. sherman and miss waters on the merits. this is a process committee, and what is a little bit disturbing we're beginning this new session

airing on the side of closing things down, and not so much of an open process. i think a lot of the concerns that have been raised here may have been taken care of if there was a formal hearing and a markup on this piece of legislation. not necessarily the subject matter, we began last week with two closed rules. i would like to think we'll have open rules on these, i doubt it, i'm sure they'll be restrictive in some way. i get it you're in control of the house and senate but especially given the fact that there's a veto threat against two and potentially three of these bills we may be going through this exercise for therapy. if that's what it's about i think it's good therapy for all of us that we have a more open process here. i yield back. >> he yields back his time

gentleman from georgia does not seek time, gentleman from florida is recognized. >> mr. chairman, miss waters pointed out one of the reasons that we should take into consideration regular order, yes to the committee that she and mr. garrett or sheppard the last election and pointments of until now have produced nine people on the k349 that have not had an opportunity. now, multibli that nine by the remaining 71 members here that have not participated. the fact that we have tread over it ignores the need for new members to come up to speak.

i'd like to ask you to respond to a quote that is attributed to mr. volcker. different than you and miss waters with a lot of experience on this committee, and mr. sherman who obviously with extraordinary accounting background that he has. i'm not an expert. i know these names you know, and i hear about clo's and all of that kind of stuff. here's what paul volker said. it's striking that the world's leading investment bankers noted for their cleverness and agility in advising clients on how to restructure companies. and even industries, however complicated, apparently can't manage the orderly

reorganization of their own activities in more than five years. what's your response if any to mr. volker. >> it's one thing when you have to restructure your activities in a business due to market forces. whether energy prices go up or changes in supplies or what have you, that's natural and should occur on a timely basis. it's another thing when that restructuring comes about through governmental intervention. what would be the impact of that? this is, as i said, there was hearings on this, this information did come out i give you an example. according to the lfta, which is the trade association, says u.s. banks hold an estimated $80 billion of cl notes which would have to be diverted before the deadline even the thread -- even just the threat of such a

divestiture, due primarily to uncertainty around the volcker rule, clo issuance dropped nearly 90% from the prior year. so when it's the government interceding in a manner like this, it is difficult for a company to restructure in a timely way because they've already been negatively impacted by the rule. >> can you tell me with these collateral loan obligations, whether in your judgment the financial crisis that we sever, that clo's and abuse was a contributing factor soto that financial crisis? >> i don't know that we've heard -- when barney frank was the chairman of the committee i don't know that we've heard any

testimony of clo's being the root cause of the problem. >> let me bring you fast forward. this bill would allow banks to hold on to billions of dollars in risky, i think most of us who are not in that business think that collateralized loan obligations are pretty risky, now you're going to give them two more years by amending the volcker rule, and, of course, that's a part of what dodd frank listens to miss waters actively in 2010 regarding reform. took us 18 months around here to get some measure of reform. requiring them to dump their clu --

>> you just mentioned $80 billion. between 94 and 96% of the domestic clo market is held by banks with at least $50 billion in asset. according to federal regulators who value the market at between 80 billion and 105 billion. here's what rubs me wrong mr. garrett, and i don't have any stock in any of these companies. i do have, as do you and all of us that are members of congress a responsibility to the american people to try to keep as best we can rules andd2l3q regulations and policies that are not ideological or bent on certain factors that we might be mindful

of but 50% of the money that i just talked about is held by two banks. jpmorgan and city group. something's wrong with that picture much it's wrong for a variety of reasons. i gather you would have me say that jpmorgan and city group have never done anything fraudulent, have never done anything in the nature of accounting fraud? now, i happen to be at the merscy of accountants, i don't get contributions from them. at some point along the line you're going to get bought into a financial crisis if you continue down this road. in title vii it would allow

over 60% of all public companies to stop reporting their financial statements in computer readable format. you would have me believe that small businesses are going to in light of the fact that they would lose out on coverage of investment and hindering the sec's ability to find and stop corporate accounting fraud. the small businesses are going to flourish. i have news for you, i know a lot of small business owners like a lot of us here, every last one of them who has been trying to get along has had difficulty in this period of time, and i hear it all the time it is a continuing thing in the office that i'm privileged to serve, and so i'll just leave it there, whether than belabor it mr. chairman. i join and echo strongly about returning to regular order around here, if we do not, not for democrats or not for republicans, not for

conservatives or liberals, if we don't do this for the american people at some point, you will just close out this process, and we may as well not be here, you go past committees, you bring stuff straight up here to the rules committee we're becoming more important than i thought we were at some point. and now all of a sudden we're going to drill all of these things, have little secret passages in them and somewhere along the lines, something is wrong with that picture. mr. sherman before i yield my time -- >> the gentleman from new jersey quoted testimony where he said, we needc more time to devest but because of the sneaky word issued in title viii, this extends the time to hold clo's that you invest in. so it's not just more time to sell off that which you already own, it is an invitation to buy

and hold for five years that which you do not own. and i don't know if the gentleman has any testimony where any bank came before us and said, we need to buy more clo's in 2015 and hold them to 2019. it's one thing to say we need more time to divest. it's another thing to have an amendment that uses the word issued rather than the word acquired. >> i join you and miss waters and your concern and hopefully we'll be able to address them -- this bill isn't going to go anywhere, and we all know that, and if that's the exercise that we are required to participate in, i think the governor will point out again i don't need the therapy i've been here too long for the therapy. and it's troubling to me that we are not doing this the right way.

>> the why yields back his time 37 the gentleman -- does anyone else seek time? gentleman from louisville texas is recognized. >> if i recall correctly, dodd-frank passed the correctly, dodd frank passed in the house of representatives in 2009 and passed the full congress in 2010. under the plain reading when it was passed, when was the volcker amendment supposed to be in effect by the regulators. it is all right delayed, has it not? i don't understand where it comes. is it another two years to allow people to establish what they need to establish? is that asking too much? i'm asking for general

knowledge. >> you're right on the point. dodd frank was a compilation of over 400. it was a overwhelming task and it was one which the regulators did not meet, so you're right as to what negative impact could have been not put off, but by doing what we're trying to do here. if i may, the gentleman from california said he has not heard any evidence or testimony to the point that mr. hastings raised. perhaps the reason is because he was not here on the february 26th hearing that we had on this matter. at that hearing, to your point that you apparently didn't hear,

it was the executive vp of research and analysis if you have the volcker rule, and they keep from devesting, the appetite is reduced by about 80%. they will not participate in the market and will lead to our other point that we can see a significant cost of financing for u.s. companies. her point is, by not allowing the devesting and investing you would see a significant drop and there have the sale price goes down and therefore a harder availability for credit in the market. if the chairman will allow. to mr. hasting's appoint, i was trying to remember a number 2% or 3%. the actual default rate was not

50%, 40%, or 20%, the actual default rate for clom s was .401%. these are not risky entities or matters that we're dealing with. these are not the root cause of the financial crisis. the evidence indicates the opposite. they're a workable credit for the markets. >> let me further ask if i could, so there is a benefit to having them available? they're not just there -- there is a benefit to the average american to have these available, is that correct? >> that is absolutely correct. it is a benefit that meets -- where main street meets wall street. a benefit where small business

benefits from the clos out there, it benefits the employee that is able to be hired by the small and mid size employer that has credit available now to buy equipment, trucks, and whatever he needs before he can hire more employees. clos allow that to occur. >> i recognize the gentleman from california for complete refutation of what we just heard. >> this bill deals with clos issued by january 31 2014. that means it deals with money that went to main street by january 24 2013. it has nothing to do with issuing new clos. new clos, money that flows into

a local business does not benefit from this issued and would not benefit from this amendment. this amendment deals only with the big banks that bought clos years ago and now want to sell it not to a hedge fund, not to a private investor, but they want to sell it to another big bank that should not be buying it. in which dodd frank envisions they will not continue to own. so this amendment, there is no reason to allow a bank to buy a clo that was finishes before jan 21st 2014. they're not buying it from the issuer. they're not buying it from an operating company. they're buying it from another bank. and what the goal of the volcker

rule is though have the clos not owned by institutions but owned by nose entities that can take the risk. >> why has it been okay for the regulators to postpone that for this length of time. >> first of all, they did not postpone it with regard to items issued before. second we may very well, in a mark up come up with a good approach to this. i think the regulators have given banks not only three extra years, but two extra years by not getting the regulations out on time. so they had, they will have a total of five years. and i would not mind marking up a big in committee where we can discuss what the date ought to

be. the idea that here, for the first time we will discuss the date july 21st 2019. and now for the first time, we're going to deal with not only instruments that the banks bought earlier but we're going to open the door to new investments. it seems like -- it doesn't team like this is the jury of -- >> maybe it would be a good thing to provide a time line so they have a target. >> who benefits from these things? there is a whole list from california. burlington coat factory, toys are us, hertz they're all companies that benefit from this. we're going by the regular order

here. this bill came through initially through the hearing subcommittee, and full committee. the issue of this date was discussed and further more the issue of devestiture and was the same language as we heard here. >> the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. at the risk of extending this, i, as the only rules committee member that sits on financial services the gentleman from new jersey referenced fire sale, i want him to help people understand how creating a date certain how they have to sell these, and you limit the number of buyers and increase the number of sellers, what that does to bank capital in this

country about and many community banks and why it is the only mechanism for small community banks to help main street businesses that may be bigger than they can provide the whole loan too, but that can buy into the loan and they help businesses that care a lot about this issue because they rr enexisted in collateralized loan options. they would have to sell at a fire sale price. can you jex exexpound and help everyone understand. >> i think the gentleman pretty well -- >> i'm sorry to give a leading question. >> i think the gentleman came to a conclusion on the test as well. it comes back to the testimony that we heard that it is a

benefit that the effect of this about the -- impact on the pricing going forward, and that's what the gentlelady was testifying, it drives down the price and the availability of this. i could go through it but i won't. the number of companies throughout the country that rely upon this and it would be negatively impacted if we did not move forward with this. >> one follow up if i could, to the gentleman from jersey. you don't have to read the list of those companies but they're mostly middle market companies which used to be small businesses but they became successful. now they need to do a

collateralized loan obligation. they are named that we would recognize. and when i got the list of companies that issued collateralized loan operations i was amazed at how many names i recognized of companies that employ tens or hundreds of my constituents. >> he yields back his time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to agree on a different perspective. we understand the numbers and the jargon. listening to the debate back and forth, i think it is good for the american people and what we're doing, it has become clear that the problem is the two years. when you look at the rest of it, i mean 57 to 0, this is

committee votes and one that was along the lines of a party. 36-23. the problems that many of us have with dodd frank is what happens to the bottom line of the american public trying to get loans, to make their businesses work, who have been impacted in my area where the big banks are present but they're not everywhere. why? it's a lot of rural a lot of poor, they don't have the atlanta area market. so my community banks are getting killed. if you have a fire sale, like talked about here that they're already looking at things like this where the regulators themselves already put it off, twice. the best quote for me, the money quote that we will talk about here on regulatory, was the gentleman from california said it took them two years to develop the regulation that's

this body put on them. it's time this body start doing their job putting bills together giving direction and letting regulatory agencies run the agency. you did exceptional, you did well enough to come back. we will look forward to this debate on the floor, and you're now excused, thank you, this closes the hearing on hr-37. mr. garrett, thank you very much. we now have the next panel, hr-185 regulatory and accountability act. i see that mr. johnson is here from georgia and the gentleman from pennsylvania. please, if both of you will take your place, i want to welcome both of you to this important

hearing, and thank you very much for your time as you have been a part of this hearing today. thank you. mr. marino, thank you very much. you're here for an expressed reason. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. if i would make sure you do pull that mic close to you and that the green light is on and the gentleman is now recognized. >> thank you, chairman. good evening, congressional members. pleasure to be here with you this evening. thank you chairman sessions. >> gentleman, could you yield just a moment please, we're joined by the young chairman of the judiciary committee, and i

ask that he come be a part of this, and mr. marino to please proceed with testimony he is recognized. >> thank you chairman thank you chairman sessions for the opportunity to testify today regarding hr-185. chairman goodla introduced. the bill responds to numerous important regulatory issues considered during multiple hearings during the sub committee, and the sub committee on courts and administrative law in the 12th congress. they reported the bill favorably in the 112 and 114th congresses. hr 3010 in the 112th congress.

even titles. the text is identical to the text passed by the house in september 2014 as part of hr 4. mr. chairman the american people are now four elections and more than six years into the worth economic crisis since the great depression. despite good signs, jobs have not truly recovered. instead, permanent exits from the labor force are at historic levels. dependency has increased. people have not found a confident path forward. we're losing something precious. all across this country, people who have been struggling whose

jobs and wages have been disappearing, people whoa have been leaving the labor pool for the dependency pool. people who see no way possible to start a new business. they can feel in their bones that the american dream is slipping away. what is killing the american dream. more than anything else the endless drain of resources that takes working people's hard earned weighs to washington and washington's regulatory roadblocks in the path of opportunity and growth. today the burden of federal taxation and regulation is over $3 trillion. almost 20% of our economy. of that a larger part is the burden of regulation. now estimated to reach $1.86 trillion. the federal regulatory burden is larger than the 2013 gross domestic product of the top ten

countries in the world. it is half of germany's entire gdp. more than one-third of japan's. the burden is $15,000 per american household. nearly 30% of average household income in 2013. no one says we need no regulation. but who can credibly say we need regulation that cost this much? hr 185 addresses head on the problem of endly es escalating excessive federally regulated costs. principals proving in bipartisan practice. what are those principals? here are some of the most important. require agencies to choose the lowest cost rule making alternative that meets statutory objectives.

in feeding to preektt public health choosing costly or rules, but make sure the added benefits justify the added cost. inprove public outreach to identify better more efficient regulatory alternatives. provide, on the record what stream lined administrative hearings. those that impose $4 million or more in annual cost and subjecting critical evidence to cross-examination. require advanced notice to increase public input before costly agency positions are proposed and entrenched. in a nutshell it says to every agency fulfill the statutory goals that the united states congress set for you. protect health safety, consumers, and the vulnerable.

you are free to do that and you should when congress gives you that orders. as you achieve those goals make sure you do it with better public input. test information and better tested information and in the least costly way. hr 185 brings urgently needed regulatory reform to hard working americans. i request that the rules committee grant an ploept rule that allows for expetitiondious. >> i rise to speak in opposition. >> hr 185 is a sweeping revision

of the administrative procedure act that convolutes through numerous attacks. despite the mantra for the minority party, getting government off the backs of the people, or remove bud and regular laces, what this regulatory accountability act does is to -- it doesn't stream line the process it imposes 74 new rule makeing -- with deregulating industries by halting the agency rule making process. so these requirements are largely opposed by the nation's leading administrative law

experts. and it causes years of rule making avoidance by agencies. as a result of this deregulation. hr 185 would seriously under mind protecting health and safety, undermining protections for every regulated industry from consumer health, environmental protections workplace safety to consumer financial protections. this is part of an orgy of attack on rule makemaking in this country. the only basis is the unsupported games that erodes

economic health. contrary to my colleagues aserss that regulations kills jobs a wealth of unimpeachable, bipartisan evidence last effectively debunked this claim. the omb estimated that major regulations benefitting the economy between $217 billion and $863 billion a year had a mere cost of 57 to 84 billion. so the net result was positive. in a study they found that since the recession there is sfwer row correlation between job growth and regulations. more over, the san francisco federal reserve found there is no evidence that increased regulations and taxes have any

effect on the unemployment rate. if anything growth was due to weak consumer demand. other studies made similar findings. a republican witness from the american enterprise institute a conservative think tank focused on jobs and regulatory debate could lead to confusion and that the effects are indeterminant. a senior policy advisor wrote in the "new york times" that the nexus between deregulation and job growth is "made up," and "nonsense." and the tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations had no effect

on the economy in the george bush administration. the only evidence, literally the study relied on for the absurd figures, derive from a study roundly disproven by the nonpartisan congress gnat research service. and they found that the evidence was cherry picked and without value. they have since reputuated their use in policy debates. even if we were to rely on this flawed analysis the only conclusion we could draw from it is that the bush administration did little to reduce the supposed regulatory burdens that

remembers argue undermine job and growth. ski that my amendment would exempt from hr-185, all rules for result in net job creation. under president obama, this economy has roared back to life for the top 1%. unemployment is falling at the fastest rate in decades, and our nation's growth, excuse me, our nation's gross domestic product grew at 5% between july and september last year, the fastest since 2003, and will continue to grow throughout this year. sadly the benefits of the economic up tick have yet to trickle county to the 99% of

working americans in majority rule legislature should do more to help level the playing field for those workers. this does not do so. it is clear. and wage stage nation is locked in and entrenches. their growth and progress will continue, it is because of the assertion that hr 185 hampers job growth. i ask that if the if the -- if it's not made in order that the committee consider an amendment to raise the minimum wage and along with cutting regulation.

i ask my colleges to oppose this misguided and dangerous legislation. >> thank you, chairman if i could have you turn that on right there? >> mr. chairman i think the chairman of the sub committee has very well explained the purpose of this legislation. so i will only add that i think this is common sense legislation. each of us as members of congress are held accountable directly to the voters. who are the people who have the jobs and run the businesses and so on, that are impacted by government regulations. those writing them don't have as

much accountability. it is required they regulators use the lowest cost effective way to implement the law passed pi congress. the executive branch that a lot of people far exceeded their authority. >> i want to thank all three of you for your testimony today. >> excuse me, thank you very much. >> you want to grab the chair over here to the right, and you're exactly right. my crack staff said that to me a couple minutes ago, and i do recognize that you're getting here being here for this purpose is important and before we continue on thank you, for

tomorrowing the opportunity. u.s. food and drug administration is one of the most important tools that we have to ensure that the products that americans use every day as well as the medicines vaccines and medical devices are safe and effective. they're instrumental in ensuring that consumer goods are safe. in an increasingly globalized economy, it must remain a top requirety. we could unnecessarily complicate the rule making process and increase the risk that unsafe products will end up in the hands of consumers. this is a real harm and it will pressure greater pressure on our economy.

today, i offer a common sense amendment that will exempt the rule making responsibility. it would ensure that the fda could respond quickly and defects are found when food safety is at stake. we must go through 34 more proceed procedural and rule making process. it will be three years longer than anyone should have to wait for safe food or safe medicine. i encourage to make this amendment to continue the health of the american people. i yield back. >> thank you we appreciate your testimony, i apologize for not getting you up there, i did see you walk in. >> thank you mr. chairman i think the gentleman for bringing this important bill to us the

benefits should be justified. and they should justify the cost. it seems syrup simple and straightforward. >> i just want to say how good things are going. january twine when president obama took off, the unemployment rate was 7.8. by october that same year it climbed to 10% because of the recession he inherited. last month, it was 5.6. nearly 11 million, actually 10.9 private sector jobs have been created over 57 months of-- 27 months of consecutive growth.

i would like to ask unanimous con acceptability. i have 84 changes. mostly of reporting prior notices, and things that the regulators would have to do to comply with this law. and so i'm -- let me ask you for unanimous consent to put that in the record thank you. >> thank you very much, i appreciate the gentlewoman. >> do you seek recognition? >> it sure looks like this bill is going to make it better for people that want to create jobs in this country. and while certainly there may be amendments that are in order to make sure that we do things right, and look at alternatives the bill permits costlier high schools to protect public health safety and welfare.

i think it is a great start. i think -- i appreciate the debate and all of the members coming and looking forward to getting this bill moving, thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> yes very quickly i want to ask for consent to insert the statement of administration policy in the record that basically says if the president were presented with this bill the senior advisors would recommend a veto. i would just also say we're talking about rules, accountability, we're the rules me. this is a new congress, we ought to open this thing up and make sure that every member has the ability to offer what he or she may want to offer on the floor and i hope this is an open rule.

>> gentleman does not seek recognition. mr. collins, you're recognized. >> coming from the judiciary committee, being part of this last year, i think these are things that need to be pointed out. but the administrative procedure procedures act. it should have a proper regulatory role. when this was developed, i don't think it extended the expanse of what was happening. agencies are not required to identify the cost before them. it does not require them to be reasonable or lower cost alternatives. they don't even have to have the best reasonable and obtainable evidence. it is very telling because the

ap must be broukt upght up to date. i support the revisions. they require them to look into costs and benefits. it t is dover every day in board rooms and kitchen tables. let's have the conversations at kitchen tables. they do these kind of things. from my understanding, also, these are all based on executive orders that reagan, clinton, bush, obama have issued over the years. they're not permanent or enforceable by the courts. in fact, even president obama acknowledges that new regulations must take into account benefits and costs. it's amazing for me that my

friends across the aisle. i guess they say now that benefits and costs must be part of this. this is what needs to happen. we need to look at this. so with that, i think looking at this in a way i believe there is certain things that need to be made. i think the cost and threshold is something that we can look at as well. i think this is a good bill and the american people need to know that we're doing our job and we need to put together a proper rule. >> mr. chairman, i indicated that i did not seek regulation, but i ask unanimous consent if the chair would allow to include the statement of sheila jackson lee for order on the regulatory -- >> objection. >> mr. polish, do you seek

recognition? >> not at this time. >> i want to thank this panel -- gentleman is recognized. >> it has been -- yes. >> i would like to ask for unanimous consent to insert into the record the united states house of representatives judiciary committee. i'm going to call it a white paper submitted by chairman goodlatt that outline the improvement thgs is going to make starting with cost proper evidence, more public input, and less litigation. rule making requirements and time lines. >> i want to thank all four of you. thank you very much. i want to thank all four of you for being here.

mr. chairman, your time too. this now closes the hearing portion of hr 185. the regulatory accountability act of 2015. we now get to the main play of the day. i would like to ask the gentleman from texas, judge carter, good to see you, hope you're feeling better. i note that mrs. lowie is here. and you're the panel prepared to speak to us. we spoke last month and the decision was made that we would defer the funding for homeland security away from the rest of the year to march the 1st. there has been a lot written. there has been a lot said. there has been a lot of activity

on this. important measure and i believe it allowed both of you time to not only effectively prepare yourself today but the rest of the congress to also. and judge carter, welcome to the committee, if you have anything in writing, we'll enter into t into the record. judge, you're looking fit and sound. >> thank you for allowing me to be here at this time. while it is expect thad the amendment we add to this big an effort that i whole heartedly support, the resources provided in the underlying bill are needed by the men and women defending our land and national security. we watched a terrible tragedy in

paris. like 9/11, this event and many others occurred in the last year remind us that our democratic values are under constant attack and serve as a warning that we must remain vigilant. what happened in paris can happen anywhere. we must provide the resources necessary to find and root out the seeds of terrorism. passing the fiscal year, 2015 department of homeland security is imperative and we cannot fail to meet this challenge. mr. chairman i'm here today grate think with mrs. lowy, the ranking member of the committee for this agreement. it provides support for personnel. the bill is within the sub

committees 302-b allocation. $39.7 billion and it contains no earmarks. in the interest of time i will not outline all of the programs and activities under the bill but i would like to point out major names. this bill provides no discretionary funding to implement the president's actions on immigration. this bill provides no discretionary funding to implement the president's executive actions on immigration. this agreement contains funds for 23,000 cvp officers, and 21370 border patrol.,370 border patrol. the largest force in history. it includes 3.4 billion for

i.c.e. detention programs which is above the president's request to fully fund the mandated beds the 3072 family detention units. and new officers to detain, deport. it caps tsa screeners at 45000, and reduces funds for tsa while providing additional funds for privateized screening. it fully funds the eighth national security cutter and one additional c-130 aircraft.

it provides seven billion to fully fund fema's operational needs for the disaster relief funds and it responds first responder grants at the actor levels to include sustainment for funding for firefighter assistance grants, mrnl management performance grants. the bill also funds completion of the national agro defense facility. it reduces headquarters, over statutory mandates and including stringent reporting requirements for everything from major ak cue suggestions to inventory, purchases and usage.

this bill meets the security needs of our nation. i think it is worthy of every member's vote. i urge my colleagues to support this measure on the floor. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. carter. welcome, it's good to see you. i had a chance to be with you the other day, and a real opportunity to speak not only about the important measures today, but also about friendship. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today, and i'm very pleased to testify with my friend, judge carter the democrats side of the approachuationsapproach appropriations committee. i'm very pleased to be here today. we all know the outcome of this

dangerous game being played with this bill today. the legislation that judge carter discussed i could support, it would work. in this form unfortunately, it will not be enacted. all we're doing today is further delaying an enactment of a full-year bill. again, i want to make it clear that the product that judge carter was discussing was negotiated between republicans and democrats, and it should have been in law today given the urgency of so many situations throughout the world that we're well aware of. what we're doing today is further delaying enactment of a full year bill. i'm extremely disappointed that republicans insist on making congress pray out this farce at the expense of our nation's security. it is taking less than two weeks

for the republican congress to prove that it can't governor responsibly. the republican majority already delayed a full year funding bill for the homeland security when they dropped it from the package in december. now more than a quarter of the way through the fiscal year we continue to play games with the funding for an agency created to protect the nation from terrorist attacks. last week as we know terrorists brutally murdered 12 people at the office of a french is asatirical magazine. is that is a tragic example of the kind of out of the blue attack that the department of homeland security and other law enforcement partners are working hard to prevent here in the

united states of america funding that is critical for supporting local first responders in our defense against homegrown terrorism and future centers. where they gather, share, analyze threat information with state and local law enforcement partners. the failure to enact a full year bill will slow down efforts to begin addressing problems with security at the white house. the department will be limited in their ability to move forward with the secretary's unity of effort initiative to make the department more strategic and improve coordination among it's opponents. resources to detain truly dangerous criminal aliens, to manage another rapid influx of

unaccompanied children. acquisition of the final national security cutter and other coast guard assets will be delayed. mr. chairman and members of the rules committee, again i want to say that the democratic members and the republican members of this committee worked hard to put a really good bill together. the world that we're living in threatens each of us and our families no matter where we live in the united states of america and abroad. i urge you, i urge my colleagues to give up the partisan games that threaten our national security. bring a clean bill to the house floor. let's vote on it implement it immediately. >> thank you very much.

i have had a chance, along with this committee to hear for a number of years the good, bad and difficult things that the american people have been working with that we have been trying to make progress and few things stuck out at me as the president's decision as he did which he knew would be unpopular. i put up with a lot of things from this committee and over year for the last four or five years we have been disappointed to hear that this administration wasted $1 billion trying to get mechanic records from the defense department of veteran's affairs. we hear constantly about the in fighting bickering the mistakes. the president was on the tv today, the mistake dealing with the representative to paris.

i can't fix these things but we have a voice. and the voice that we have is where we speak and try to work. on behalf of the american people and with this administration on the things when we give them money. we are going to withhold the money because we believe what the president did was unlawful, illegal, and unconstitutional. when he decides he can make law because someone else didn't act is a sad day. with great fairness back to you, we want to say back to the president, six or seven weeks ahead of time, mr. president we disagree with you. that's our prerogative. there is a process. we're going to find out if people agree with me on this committee when it quos to the floor what people think, and when the united states senate has an opportunity to do that

also. you and i recognize that a hot of people disagree with the president, a republican or democrat yununilaterally making decisions. the president put it to us we're putting it back to the president. judge carter, the other leaders of this house, i expect you too, to ask the president to be as reasonable as we are, and that is to try and look at the bigger picture and to realize that we have a disagreement and try to resolve it. that's what we're attempting to do. >> just a word, mr. chairman and i won't continue to discussion but, i do think that the issue of immigration reform deserves a serious full discussion on the house floor. i have been supportive of comprehensive immigration

reform. the point that i want today make, and i feel strongly about it the homeland security bill has others attached to it on another subject. we work very hard, this homeland security bill, shared by my friend judge carter is a good bill, it should stand on it's own. and chairman rogers, if he is here today he worked so hard on the vrch's affairs issues. people from the department of veteran's affairs, the military department, that is a serious issue that has still not been resolved, but homeland security this bill given what's happening in the world today and i know we talked about this, i have eight grandchildren and i worry every day. i don't want to think that an

immigration debate is being tied to this this makes it a political issue, and frankly, i think it is unfortunate and the majority of the people in the united states want us to focus on homeland security i yield back. >> i'm willing to go to the mat with the president on this this is the way we do things. >> mr. chairman, if i may. >> gentleman is recognized. >> i understand the passion that the gentlelady has for the bill do i too it is a good bill, also for the debate that is being discussed. it raises the issue of this executive order that the president has basically stepped up and slammed in our face. and people are looking in that debate just as they are for the homeland security on the bill. i think the american public

supports what we have done. we have been creative we have met with the senate, we have conferenced with the senate. this is a good bill as it sits. but i also support the amendment process going forward. it is time for the american people to hear from both sides. i think as you very effectively stated, this is the method by which we will hear the other side of the story. i think that other side of the story needs to be heard i thank you and i yield back. >> i think you have been very effective today. judge, i'm glad you were back. we're delighted that your health is restored back to it. the only thing you didn't say here today is go red raiders every else had a shot.

i know who your team is thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i have no questions. gentlewoman from new york? >> i have no questions, i think i know where we all are on this. did that die at the end of the 113th congress? >> it was until the end of the year as i recall. i could be corrected -- >> where is the lawsuit? >> let me see if i can find out. >> what's that? >> it sure was. we just passed a rules package. >> i understand that it was in the rules package okay thank

you. >> thank you mr. chairman, i always appreciate the way that they come up here, and they work together and provide a product. it's not that we're dealing with a null year approachuations bill today, but back in may when the sub committee passed this, or back in december when we did it. was there anything that went on in those conversations that you were privy to that led you to believe that but for the president's issuing of these memos, that homeland security would have been stripped out of the bill. i remember having the conversation, what are we going to do, how are wed fund -- we'll look at it post election. my expectation was that it will be for the entire government as it often is. the way that he did it, we find

ourselves here do you have any reason to believe that except for the president doing what he did, we would not be here today. >> if i may be heard. i will give you my personal opinion. i think that is the straw that broke the camel's back. back in may and june inactivity in the senate slowed things down substantially, and we were not in a position to bring -- normally homeland is one of the first bills to come out because we were not getting a lot of response at that point in time, it was slowed substantially. ep and the president's conversation that he was going to do this put breaks on it too. when he did it it slammed the brakes hard. and i truly believe but for the lead up to it when he said he was going to do it, and when he

did it we probably would have been part -- >> i don't want folks to believe it was because of a lack of production. you were all ready to go. and the whole congress would have been ready to go. >> i would agree with that. >> with great respect, i'm a little puzzle ldd. last time i checked, your party controls the house and the senate. it seems to me this homeland security bill negotiated in good faith between the house and the senate should move on it's own merits and then you can bring up legislation any time. to deal with the immigration issue, and i would welcome that. i support comprehensive immigration reform, and certainly you disagree with the president's actions but there is no reason when there is such threats in the world today, just look at what happened in paris

last week that you would hold up a homeland security bill because of the immigration issue. let's have a real debate on the floor on immigration, i would welcome it. >> inend with respect, it is true last time you checked we did control both houses of congress. >> now you do. >> but at the time we passed the omnibus bill we did not. it is a joint bill brought between the democratic senate and republican house. and again, what i thought i understood the gentleman from texas to say was, but for the president taking us down this road, and this is -- i don't want to be confused -- i don't want anybody to be confused that we're having an immigration discussion here. we're not. we're having an article 1, article 2 constitutional responsibilities discussion. we're having a discussion about whether or not the president, who's charged with implementing the law, with executing the law, with enforcing the law can just decide that he's not going to do any of those things. that's the discussion we're having here. it happens to be you're on the

all-powerful appropriations committee with the power of the purse. so we turn to you to exert article 1 prerogative in those cases. but it's just -- it's disappointing to me. you did a tremendous job with your work product again. starting in may into june. i wish we could have done it before september 30th. but we would have done it. we would have done it. it was in the package the am anybodyus package that would have come to the senate for pass tharnlgs would have gone to the president's desk for signature but for the president taking us down this road and again forcing folks who believe in article 1 and its responsibilities and prerogatives to stand up for constituents across the country. i'd be happy to yield to the gentleman from new york. >> we can continue. we clearly have a different view. but i would like to say again, there is bipartisan support for the homeland security bill. every one of us understands the urgency of passing that bill. i would just respectfully ask you to report that bill and then

have another discussion next week. we can have a full discussion of immigration reform. i'm ready for that. you can challenge the president. you can come up with something else. but don't mess with the homeland security of the united states of america. your constituents and mine. and frankly, i was in times square in new york, and when i saw people back to back, thousands and thousands of people in times square just as it happened in paris, it can come here and i don't want to be part of any effort to hold up a homeland security bill that protects each and every one of our districts. that is my request. >> i appreciate the gentlelady's support and confidence in the bipartisan nature of the process. my great expectation is we're going to have bipartisan support on each of these amendments we go through and i hope we're able to carry that confidence right on through to the end of the

process. >> i am aware we are missing about 90 members right now, but i'd like to see whether anybody would like to have questions. >> i just want to thank you for being here and for your patience. because listening to this debate here i can't help but fear it must be maddening for you to sit here and listen to this kind of talk about why we're in this situation. we're in this situation because the republican leadership decided to hold the homeland security appropriations bill hostage over immigration politics. and you were way too kind when you said this was a partisan game. it's also an ugly game. it's about tearing families apart. that's what's at the heart of why this whole thing is being held up. and what's going on in the world today, what happened in france last week, with all the kayos in the world that anybody would fool around or play political games with this bill of all bills, to me is unconscionable. we ought to pass this product a bipartisan product that i think

would pass the house overwhelmingly if not unanimously and send it to the president's desk and be done with it. you want to fight about immigration, let's have a debate. for six years. for six years we have tried to bring comprehensive immigration reform to the floor of this house. the senate actually passed a bill in a bipartisan way. we have yet to even have had the opportunity to vote on it. so the fact we're now holding this bill hostage i think is disgraceful. and i think the american people are watching this and scratching their head and saying what the hell's going on here? no wonder why people hate congress. with that i yield back my time. >> judge hastings. >> i have no questions. >> you have no questions. here's what we're going to do. i'm going to look to the other end and ask if they have any questions. we're trying to get to ms. quloilowy. we'll go vote, we'll come back and debate after this piece, the other piece, and that is the amendments.

and that's -- i hope -- we've been in here a long time. the gentleman from texas do you seek time? mr. chairman. >> i just have a question for the ranking member. did the president consult with you before he issued his statements regarding immigration in november? recognizing that it may impact the bill upon which you were working. >> i just want to make it clear. i did not have a discussion with the president. but it is so clear to me as i've said as mr. mcgovern said bipartisan homeland security bill. it is essential that we pass this bill to protect your community and my community and then let's have a discussion on immigration. anytime. >> reclaiming my time. it is the president's actions that have brought us to this point, not anything that has happened at the united states congress.

>> it seems to be a real disagreement on that. >> mr. chairman, i'll yield back. >> mr. collins. >> yes, mr. chairman. i do have a specific question and comment. the specific question is dealing with the oversight of secret service and hearings i was in last year it seems to me that there is sufficient room for the secret service to improve their act, so they can protect the president and first lady. do you agree with the funding that's in there for that? >> oh of course. >> i have one other statement. and before my colleagues across the aisle and their feigned indig nans about who started this, i've about had it to here. about what we did on immigration when we did it. i remember and i said this from the floor. i remember a nirvana for our members across the aisle just a few years ago. you controlled the house. you controlled the senate. you had the presidency. you put dodd frank in front of us. you put obamacare in front of us. you did many things that had no republican support. and now we have feigned indig nans that we want to have a debate on immigration when you could have done it for two years

like did you everything else without republican support? >> will the gentleman yield? >> not yet. >> okay. >> because at this point in time they are a problem. and i as a member of the department of home services know one thing, that i would not stand in the way of what we're doing here. the problem is what my colleagues have said, is this got thrown in when you didn't do it a few years ago when you could, and now you have the president who wants to insert his politics into this. this is what the gentleman from georgia said. this is about article 1, article 2. it's about roles and responsibilities. and to have this debate and to throw feigned indignance in here to say we could have been doing this in a dibt on immigration. the republican party will have the debate on immigration but it's not going to be dictated on the terms of someone in the white house saying here's what i'm going to do without you. >> well, if the gentleman would yield. i would just simply say don't play politics with the national security of this country. and by tying this issue to the homeland security appropriations bill that's exactly what my

friends are doing. and i think that is a big mistake. i thank the gentleman for yielding. >> then i'll reclaim my time. then don't play politics with the american people on what you wish you would have done when you had the ability to. right, mr. chairman? i yield. >> i want to thank all the members that are here. we will now be in recess subject to the call of the chair at the end of the third vote.

[ room noise ]