the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by

our chaplain, father conroy. haplain conroy: let us pray. loving and gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. help us this day to draw closer to you so that with your spirit, and aware of your presence among us, we may all face the tasks of this day with grace and onfidence. bless the members of the people's house as they return from constituent visits over the last weekend. may these decisive days in which we are living be an opportunity for them to rise to the challenges of governing well and addressing the needs of our nation. give them the wisdom and the courage to fail not their fellow citizens, nor you. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approve the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx. ms. foxx: please join in the pledge to our wonderful flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: the president's

broken promises continue to hurt american families. according to the administration's own report, an estimated 11 million small business employees are facing higher premiums because of the government health care takeover which destroys jobs. after being forced to purchase insurance in the obamacare exchange, stephanie writes, quote, this required purchase of obamacare insurance cost my husband and i over $900 per month and we get nothing for eit. it's less expensive for us to remain uninsured so we have let our premium lapse. we hope something will and can be done to prevent folks like us from being penalized for not keeping our insurance. we don't have over $900 extra a month just to throw away, end of quote. the affordable care act is anything but affordable for families and should be repealed and replaced to provide relief for millions of americans like stephanie. women are most knowledgeable about the failure of obamacare.

in conclusion, ogod bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. as the president looks for a new v.a. secretary it's important to not let the veteran's health care scandal distract from ongoing efforts to sort out the claims backlog. the v.a. has undertaken important reforms to streamline the process such as electronic records and work -- working to ensure that initial claims contain all necessary information. these steps are helping to address the backlog but as the scandal on the health care side of the v.a. cons to unfold and demand the attention of policymakers, we must remain focused on effective implementation of these and her benefits determination

reforms. we're duty bound to do everything we can to ensure that our veterans have timely access to the benefits they have earn. we must ensure the incoming v.a. secretary is committed as well. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. matt: a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> the e.p.a.'s regulatory process is flawed. the data they use are hidden from the public. the agency use this is secret

science to make exaggerated claims about the alleged benefits of burdensome new regulations. every major air quality regulation proposed by this administration has been based on nontransparent data and unverifiable claims. americans impacted by e.p.a. regulations have a right to determine for themselveses if the e.p.a.'s actions are based on sound science or a partisan agenda. that is why tomorrow, the science committee will consider the secret science reform act. it requires that the e.p.a. make its regulatory data publicly available. if the e.p.a. has nothing to hide, why not make the information public? the american people who foot the bill for these regulations deserve to see the data. and good policy requires it. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired.

the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states. section 202-d of the national emergency act, 50 u.s.c. 1622-d provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to the western balkans eclared in executive order oe-132-19 of 2001 is to continue in effect beyond june 26, 2014. the threat instituted -- , stituted by act supporting

i, acts of terrorism, or ii, acts against the daytona accord in bosnia related to kosovo has not been resolved. in addition, eo-132-19 was mended by eo-132-04 of 2003 to take additional steps with respect to obstructing implementations or the agreement relating thomas donea. because the acts of extremist violence and obstructionist activity outlined in these executive orders are hostile to u.s. interests and continue to pose an unqurebl threat to the foreign policy of the united states, i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to the western balkans.

signed, sincerely, barack obama, he white house, june 23, 2014. the chair: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. pursuant to clause dealingwill be back, with other issues, and tonight, the commodities future trading commission. we could see work on oil and gas energy production. the supreme court has ruled that the environmental protection agency lacks authority in some cases to force cases -- .ompanies it will not affect recent

proposals for new and existing power plants. we take a look now at the oral argument the situation presented by this case is, to our knowledge, unprecedented in at least two respects. epa says it is adopted when applying other positions of those same statutes . it would, according to their terms, in the words of epa, result in a program that would be unrecognizable to the thatess that react -- inactivate. second, eda took that conclusion not as a reason to re-examine tooknterpretation -- epa

that conclusion not as a reason to re-examine its interpretation. agency fixes the problem. and this is not a single, one-time act of statutory rewriting, as problematic as that would be, because they continue to adjust and readjust the thresholds based on its ongoing assessment of the cost and benefits of regulations. eisler, your interpretation of the phrase about air pollutants, because there have been different interpretations in the various breeds and in the lower court decisions. here are some choices. position was that any air pollutant, for which the area is in attainment, that was your original vision. position hasa

another interpretation. there is another interpretation that goes on that says no, it pollutant.an any max and there is still another position that it is really any regulated pollutant other than greenhouse gases, so those are four different interpretations which the folks on your side, and i recognize there are a lot and im, have presented, guess i am wondering which one you're arguing for. >> our principal argument and the one i would like to present first is that while other programs of the clean air act gives epa authority to regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources, this does not, and this is where i would choose one of the options your honor gave me. the program is exclusively focused on emissions that have

area specific air-quality impacts and not on globally undifferentiated phenomenon. >> when you say various, i take it that these sort of ozone pollutants are not very specific. would your interpretation exclude those, as well? >> if the epa would make a ruling, yes. >> a follow-up to justice kagan, a fit interpretation by your side. that to me is the quintessential ambiguity in a statute where we give deference to the agency. so if your side cannot even come to one interpretation, why should we not differ to the agency? >> well, first of all, your honor, that definition is always

going to be limited to reasonable interpretations, and we would start out with the premise that an interpretation that requires an agency to rewrite other provisions of the act -- >> as i understand it, and i do toounderstand -- there are many people that it is regulating, we can not implement it immediately. over time,said that with streamlining and other adjustments that it cannot do this. it is just that we cannot do it right away. >> that is right, your honor, and that addresses a deeper problem. i would like to go into why i think -- >> the dissenting judges on the circuit.

the emissions on the government theory, and this seems to turn 180 degrees from that. >> i understand, your honor, -- havingng six { six open briefs is not ideal. it is not in the program at all. it would not be subject to the technology control because they do not have specific air-quality effects.

>> what about severe effects at the local level? if they exacerbate ground-level ozone? >> certainly, on any effect that any phenomenon has would at some point be felt in some local area. our point is that that is not the type of area specific -- not measurable. the agency does not even a certain it is measurable, right? >> yes. thank you very much, mr. chief justice. to get down to the level of the statutory thresholds.

the reason congress did those thresholds was because it wanted fromempt small entities the costs and burdens of the , so when epaocess says it wants to get down to the apartment building or large high schools, it is entre beaning congressional intent in another contravening congressional intent in another way. the problem is is that it violates the statutes. .hat congress meant to exclude the statute specifically says that these determinations are to be case-by-case, followed by an individualized hearing. >> it is clearly not a matter of the epa simply saying we cannot do it right away, but we are going to do it eventually. that, theydid say

would be violating the statute in a worse way, not to regulate that entities, changing into a command to regulate small entities. >> the only difference between greenhouse gases and the air pollutants it covers, went enacted, it it is that the -- enacted active -- when --it is greater than these other pollutants, and that is why there is this discrepancy between the statutory threshold and the statutory that the epa has? >> each creates its own need for the epa to violate the statute. one is the one that you and justice sotomayor were referring to.

materiallycontribute to the problem. level, the infinitesimal you are violating that aspect of the statute, but another aspect of the statute which is equally violated here is the requirement that this particular program, not the other parts of the particular 1this -- there are three essential features of the statute which we -- but thishat particular part, and there are three features of the statute which we believe show that. 7471 says the program consists of limitations and other measures as may be necessary to prevent significant deterioration of air-quality in that there are certain designations, and in the language, that has

effects on the air that people -- breathe. >> there are many other statutes where congress passes a statute that tells the supreme court to d, and then it turned that it does not make sense to apply them. this makes no sense. for example, if there was a statute that said to throw out in aubblegum, what about display case that no one intends to eat? so then we say, it does not mean to apply to that. says 250 tons or more, and we

apply that, but it does not apply. -- but it does not make any sense. >> i do not know if they can take an express command. the determination of the thresholds. confused,little because there have to be pollutants. or one million. this will not get it down to below 250, and yet, the psd program, when they get down 250 -- so it cannot be

that the statute was written only to get to the pollutants that are at 250 or can be brought below 250. >> that is right. it is our position that they set that level as the trigger. is a minimum. anything above that. >> that is right. >> above it. mr.keisler, if i can follow .p on justice breyer

everyone is violating a statutory term. no, we cannoting, with respect 250 to greenhouse gases, but you're also violating a statutory term. you know, it says any pollutant, or it says in the other provision each pollutant subject to regulation. nobody would think that is the most natural. if they have localized effects. what has happened here is you have have this new kind of emission that basically makes these two terms of the statute the agencyble, and has essentially picked one. it said, look. we are not going to just exempt a broadcast of -- a broad class of pollutants. instead, we are going to fudge

the numbers. and why isn't that the more reasonable of the two things to do? do not agree, your areas ofat those two dilemma that your honor described are equally situated. >> i do not really understand. it is true that one is a number, but the other, each pollutant subject to regulation or any pollutant, what the epa has done is for 30 years across presidential administrations treated those things as meaning a single thing, which i think if you put aside the as server t -- put aside the absurdity problem, everybody would agree it is the most reasonable interpretation of those phrases. and you are saying the epa should junk that most reasonable interpretation because of the admitting chemical -- imminent

the emi -- because of tted chemical or whatever that makes the numbers not work. >> no, let me -- it goes beyond the numbers, justice kagan. i think of anybody were looking inthe psd statute isolations, without the benefit , theysachusetts v.epa would assume that the word pollutant was an undefined term. section 7475(e), which can be 29a, in pages 27a to think, of the appendix.

that mandates the what analysis that has to be conducted every permitting process and the one analysis that congress has required be available for public hearing. you began that discussion by saying putting massachusetts v. epa to one side. but i was in the dissent in that case, but we still cannot do that. [laughter] >> under your review, what regulatory force, what regulatory significance, do those cases have? may be consistent with the subject the chief justice just opened. >> sure. let me begin with massachusetts v. epa, and then i will turn

connecticut. a, itmassachusetts v. ep did not hold that the interpretation of pollutant in that opinion had to be applied every time the word pollutant appears in the clean air act. that does not mean that it cannot be construed differently. circuitt reversed the for holding that they had to be the same, and that is why in massachusetts, after indeed holding that the definition of included unambiguously greenhouse gases, the court did not stop there. it went on to ask whether applying that definition to the provisions on motor vehicles that there were at issue in that case would produce that the court called extreme measures or counterintuitive

finding and only after that there would be no extreme or counterintuitive results to the court directed the epa to apply that definition to those title ii provisions. >> what else does it cover, other thantitle ii, motor vehicles? >> there are multiple places in which the word pollutant appears in which the epa has understood it the way i just described, in which they have interpreted the words any air pollutant to mean a subset of the pollutants. >> that is generally because the section that it is in gives a different definition directly. >> know, with respect, your honor, that is not correct. entitled -- interpreted that to mean any air

pollutant. the same thing to do with -- youres that not contradict earlier view that we cannot change the statute? >> no, i do not think so, your honor, because it was an act of interpretation in massachusetts v. epa. it would not have needed to go on and say, let's look at specifically the title ii and and ask if it would produce extreme or counterintuitive measures. >> and what other programs, i asked earlier -- what else? you say it excludes psd. critically, your honor, it includes the new source performance standards program, and this is a very important point, because this

case is not about whether epa can regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources. this court held that it could under this program in section 11. it was about whether state and local permitting authorities are supposed to regulate plant by plant under this particular psd program, and i mentioned the program, because the features of that program highlight what is wrong here, because that program does not contain the elements of the psd program. nsps does not have the 100 and year thresholds. it does not require the area-specific local impact analysis of subsection e, which epa has told authorities that even though it is mandatory, to

not conduct it, because it cannot be done for greenhouse gases. sps permits the epa to look at reducing the national footprint without regard to area-specific impacts, and it permits the epa to do this through a national uniform emissions standards that the plants can then determine -- to best meet >> so, in your opinion, i am not is. what the statutory cite using saying they are (b) to get to just the same place they are today. >> yes, without -- >> you do not see an objection. there must be some reason they

did not do that. >> there is a difference in the rulemaking, establishing a national emissions standard, and then the plants can deal with that system in the best way they can and figure out how to meet it, versus this command and mechanism, where 90-plus state and local permitting authorities are each having to decide on their own what controls a think each plant in their area should engage in it order to deal with global warming. it makes perfect sense to have 90 state and local permitting addressing the area-specific air quality impacts of the plants that are built in their states. says "such standards with such modification as he deems appropriate." that is just the language. >> right. >> ok, so if this is the right

wouldn't they copy it word for word into the rules and just put a different section number at the bottom? why can't they do it? >> because the statutory language and structure of the think,s not, we encompass these kinds of pollutants that have globally dispersed results and not it ispecific impacts, and for the reasons that i have indicated. -- i am sorry.s 71, which says that the prevention of the significant deterioration is focused on deterioration of the air wallet he in each region. a listve been keeping here of the points you have not been permitted to get to. you are going to discuss the -- you weres case

going to discuss not just the massachusetts case at the following case to massachusetts. >> connecticut. >> you never did that. aep, and connecticut v. the only point to make about that is that that was the case which held that the commission -- that the epa has the authority under section 111, the nsps provision. >> the other thing, you were going to give two points, and 3), buty got to 7411( there was another point. yes,ere were really -- there were three features i mentioned of the psd statute. this is justthat assigned to the 90 state and

local permitting authorities. it is not plausible to think -- not torespect these area specific impacts -- >> just to be clear, you're reading wouldr say that the agency was not permitted with notice and opportunity to be heard to say -- to make a criteria -- make this a criteria of pollution in naaqs. bewe think that would contrary to the statute because the national ambient air quality standards are all about regional concentrations. if the gas goes up to the atmosphere and is mixed in there, either the whole country is going to be in attainment, or the whole country is going to be out of attainment.

aqsdoes not work with the na structure. you take an don't extra five minutes, and you can begin by answering the question -- you know, the government disaggregate the discussion, and therefore is -- and their first is that their brief greenhouse gases can be regulated with respect to the sources that are already covered by the psd program. that position does not implicate your concern about the broad reach of the epa regulation, does it? >> i think it does, your honor. while that might do with the specific issues of rewriting the thresholds, the fact that the provisions for the reasons i've indicated is limited to the area would, weir impacts

think, be violated merely by applying best available control technology. >> i understand, but they would only be applying that with respect to the sources that are -- ady required to >> that is right, but they would be applying it to a substance, greenhouse gases, which the psd program was not designed to address, which was designed to addressed by another program. and i would say, your honor, that while they have tried to separate those issues out, there is one issue about who has to get a permit, and the other issue about whether the requirements of best attainable i would say, your honor, that while they have tried to separate those issues out, there is one issue about who has to get control technology applies.

a did both at once, even though it is treated separately, and i am not certain how much time i have, mr. chief justice -- [laughter] >> you have three-and-a-half minutes left. >> not including rebuttal? no, you will get five minutes of rebuttal. >> thank you, your honor. if i could then turn briefly to the second argument that i made reference to at the very beginning, which is an argument that need not be addressed if the court is persuaded by what i have just said, but if not, we erve a second, narrow argument, which is in the american chemistry council brief , which addresses the requirements for triggering the psd statute, and our position on that is very much like judge kavenaugh's -- >> well, that is not judge kave naugh's position. i thought his position is any

naaqs glutens, all naaqs pollutants. >> that is right, your honor, and that is a distinction. our position is similar, but not identical, to his position. >> and it comes from a differenh it is treated portion of the statutory language. >> that is right and we are focused on the language in any area to which this part applies. why the judges argument has been left by the wayside? ument hase judge's arg been left by the wayside? >> it is very similar. well, it comes from different statutory language. his arguments about the structure of the statue do not apply to your argument.

>> that is the argument we made below. >> i do not think that answers the question. >> excuse me, your honor? >> that is>> i said i do not tht answers the question. >> no, it is just it is been hard to make two alternative arguments. >> epa has added many others across the years. those?out all of >> your honor, it is true that itr since 1980, although proposed our interpretation as its original interpretation of the statute, ever since epa said that any pollutant, whether it aqs pollutant, whether it is a pollutant for which the area is in attainment, any pollutant would be sufficient to permit requirements, but that has had virtually no practical effect because all of those other pollutants, if they

are emitted in threshold thisities, invariably -- may no difference until greenhouse gases came on the scene, and with the court's permission, i will reserve the remainder of my time. you, counsel. general mitchell? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, there are at least two issues in this case in which epa and the petitioners agree. the first is that the term air pollutant cannot be given uniform construction after the clean air act even after this court's ruling in massachusetts

that air pollutant includes all things airborne for the purpose of title ii. the second point of agreement is that the greenhouse gases cannot be treated the same as other air pollutants for purposes of the programs,tle v because the unambiguous statutory requirements of those programs are incompatible with sensible regulation of greenhouse gases. epa thinks it can fix this imposing an agency created regime that applies only to greenhouse gases. an agency cannot make a round hole square just by rewriting statutoryguous language. >> general, i take it that the unambiguous statutory language that you're referring to is the reference to 100 and 250.- and to

and it seems to me that that is term to drive such an important statutory interpretation question, because what those numbers were all about is that they were supposed to separate major e-mail or from two separate major emitters from minor emitters. were not supposed to make any distinctions as to the type of pollutant, so you are essentially using those numbers to make distinctions as to the type of pollutant rather than, to look at the 100 and the 250 numbers. kagan, the reason we

don't think the approach that you describe is permissible is when congress has specifically withheld that type of discretion here. this is akin to a dispensing her meetinge thresholds the way they are. the question to ask is whether the term air pollutant is flexible enough to accommodate different meanings in different statutory context. even epa agrees with us that airborne can mean different things. massachusetts held that air pollutant unambiguously includes , forhings airborne purposes of title ii. epa has refused to carry over that definition throughout the clean air act. one of them is section 741184. in that provision, the term air pollutant appears as part of the definition of modification.

it doesn't mean all regulated air pollutants. epa interprets the phrase any air pollutant. in section 7490 one, epa interprets the phrase any pollutant to mean any visibility impairing pollutant. as forced to be applied to any provision of the clean air act. >> if you think about the question of what any pollutant --ns, then the numbers doesn't mean what epa has said it has meant for 30 years, which is any pollutant that is regulated under this act, or , which is anything

other than greenhouse gases are anything other than that have particular localized effects. you would obviously choose the epa version of the thing. the only reason you're not choosing and is because of these numbers that are in the statute which were designed only to distinguish between major and minor emitters. if you can distinguish between major and minor emitters while keeping the completely sensible long-standing interpretation of any pollutant, why wouldn't you do that? itbut i -- i don't think unambiguously means any regulated pollutant. that is a plausible interpretation but there are others. >> let me ask you a question. assuming we agree with no statutory command to

come to epa's conclusion. what do we do? do we just reversed them? ando we vacate and remand tell them, no, you were wrong at ?tep one there is ambiguity in the statute? >> it is more than just what -- just that there is ambiguity. just as a tobacco inclusive or nicotine inclusive character inclusive- interpretation of the word drug was not able to fit with the unambiguous requirement -- not >> but that is a difficult -- i think where justice kagan is going, and i will if she was not, but i think she was -- is 7479 in definition from

your mind. that means something to you, right? there is the potential to emit 250 tons or more of any pollutant. maybe that means every 500 people. every school is applied here. so you say we have got to do something about this statute because they do not really mean game, they football are going to have to have a permit, or it does not mean every 500 people. ,oes it mean any air pollutant any regulated air pollutant, but not greenhouse gases? ok, that is choice one. 2,- choisce

does it mean any air pollutant, including greenhouse gases? >> choice one. >> i knew you would say that. [laughter] >> the term air pollutant is flexible and has been a knowledge to be by epa for decades, and i think even by this court, notwithstanding its holding in massachusetts. theact, it must construe ambiguous language to avoid absurdity before taking choice o that your honor described, where it rewrites unambiguous statutory language to avoid absurdity. and this is another statutory provision to avoid that outcome. is that theyor epa

have insisted for decades that air pollutants can mean different things in different parts of -- >> all right, so let me modify my question. i get that language. billings is the staff person, senator muskie, and suppose that you had this choice but to you with your language. would either like to have the authority billings implicit hero exempt the football team, the ters, or we would like it not to cover it at all. which do you think the senate would have chosen in enacting this bill from the evidence and the language itself? >> the epa does not have the authority to exempt any major source from title five. they say that right there in 61(a)(a) on page 44

of the statutory appendix. >> why should we exempt people from title v? is causing thet burden that you are talking about. it is just a record-keeping provision. is a very burdensome record-keeping provision, as the epa acknowledges eerie that is why they are not willing to impose it on every entity that admits more than 100 tons per year of carbon dioxide -- that than 100 tons per year of carbon dioxide. it is plausible to impose those burdens, perhaps, on large, industrial sources, but certainly not to impose them on eli or the chinese restaurant.

so, to return to justice which wouldstion, congress have chosen, the choice was made in the statute to establish rigid numerical permitting thresholds. all right, if you can narrow it, why not their row that one -- why not narrow that one? pollutant, including greenhouse gases, to the extent that they can be sensibly controlled under this statute -- you see, i can do it anyway you want if i am repaired to read in exceptions. >> i do not think it would be a permissible act of statutory construction to say that carbon dioxide could be an air pollutant and not an air pollutant at the same time. >> well, you would accept his

definition, wouldn't you? you would be happy with a definition that says any air pollutant means any air pollutant to the extent it can be sensibly controlled under the statute. you would say this one obviously cannot. >> right, which means it cannot be regulated under title v. be a wonderfuld definition. >> it can though. it can in large quantities. i mean, you don't see anything wrong with large quantities. it is just the small quantities you have a problem with. >> well, we have a problem with -- >> i mean, are you saying it does not make sense to control major emitters of co2? >> we are saying it doesn't make sense. >> general, one question is what would congress have wanted, given the obvious purposes of the act. this is the apex of chevron .eference given that this whole thing

arises because there is this new kind of emission, which the whichs do not work for, essentially makes these two terms in the statute irreconcilable, why is that not a classic case for deference to the agency, that the agency gets to choose how to make the thing work as best it can when a changed circumstance makes it work not entirely the way congress had foretold? because the court rejected that very idea in brown , where tobacco was trying to be regulated by fda under the statute where the included clearly nicotine, if you just looked at the definition of drug in isolation, but this court rejected fda's assertion. to accept your argument, we have to reverse massachusetts. >> no, not at all, justice. >> well, you are saying that

congress did not intend to control this pollutant. we said there that it did. >> no. the court only needs to revisit massachusetts if it believes that air pollutant must have a uniform, unambiguous construction everywhere it appears in the clean air act, and not even epa is making that assertion to this court. and we have shown throughout have epa has interpreted air pollutant are friendly. so there is no need to visit massachusetts at all to conclude that at least in the context of programs ittitle v is not plausible for the agency to construe the phrase air pollutant to include greenhouse gases. if the court has no further questions, i yield back my time to the court. >> thank you, general mitchell. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. greenhouse gases pose the same

threat to public health and welfare when they are emitted from a power plant as when they from the tailpipe of a car, and in american electric power, this court said it was plain that epa has the authority to prescribe general rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions by statutory sources like power plants. yet, petitioners say epa lacks any authority to use psd permitting -- to use the psd permitting program. why would it be unreasonable to give epa authority to regulate mobile sources and not authority to regulate stationary sources, given that stationary sources have to be licensed in this fashion and produces all sorts of other problems? that does not seem to me irrational at all. >> well, the court said, i think, that it was plain that

congress gave epa the authority to regulate statutory -- stationary sources, and i think that gets to a fundamental premise where the petitioners are just wrong. 7411, and this relates to a question you asked, justice breyer -- section 7411 and the psd program are not aimed at different problems. they are aimed at the same problem, and you can see that from the text. (3),example, section 7475(a) in ourou can find appendix, you will see that in order to become eligible for a psd permit if you are a major facility, you have got to show that you can meet all of the local air quality requirements of the naaqs, and

(c) says you have got to meet any other applicable standard or standard of performance under this chapter. and the standard of performance language is not an accident. the nationwide standards that was discussing for greenhouse gases or other air pollutants are called standards of performance. turns to the definition of best available control technology under the psd program, which you can find on of the appendix to our you will notice that congress specifically linked the operation of the section 7411 standards and the best available control technology under the psd

program, and what this provision says, i will not belabor you -- my >> are you reading subsection -- i will not belabor you -- are you reading subsection c? the tonnage per year requirement , with the absurd result that .ollows >> well, i would be happy to get to that point about the connection between the operation of the to, because i think it is of critical importance here. underou're supposed to do use best available control technology to get above program sethe nsps everystandards on an eight-year basis.

nsps program was enacted as part of the 1970 act. program was added in 1977, and it was added because of dissatisfaction, and it is it's because under 7411, epa has to go one source category at a time. it has to do refineries in the next thing and the next thing. so epa had not got standards in place for all the different sources. the point of the psp program is to put in place an additional requirement, this is jack lew what congress was after. when there isn't a standard like 7411, psd is supposed to fill the breach. makes sense because you want to get the psd program -- it

-- if you want to get in there at the beginning so they don't lock in all pollution causing technology. >> about the best available control technology, i think i have an idea of what that looks like with respect to sources already regulated because they are related to the naaqs. available control technology look like with respect to greenhouse gases question mark >> it's an evolving process only your honor. there are 140 or so permits and have been issued with some very helpful discussion of this kind of specifics into places.

>> am i right, because the greenhouse gases do not affect ambient air quality in a way the naaqs provisions do. you're dealing with regulation of energy usage as opposed to you missions of lead -- >> the main thing now is, significant energy efficiency, for example different kinds of turbines. >> the same sort of thing is for domestic uses as the energy-efficient light bulbs. >> i really don't think this is about light bulbs, mr. chief justice. >> no, but my point is a relates to energy consumption as opposed to particulates in mission. considering and scientists are trying to develop additional control technologies like carbon capture technologies come and that's the whole point of best available control

technology reread as technology advances and better options come online that allow for even greater control of the pollutants, the statute requires that they be incorporated. that's how it's supposed to work. talking about your two distinct arguments in your brief. if you prevail on the first -- in other words, greenhouse gases may be regulated with respect to sources that are already subject to per meeting him a my understanding, it gets you 283% of the greenhouse gas emissions. >> that's correct. >> prevailing on the second argument gets you 286%. >> that's correct. >> of this is a fight about an additional three percent, and yet according to the petitioners, that brings in this huge regulatory problem, regulating the high school football game and whatnot. human beings are actually net neutral on carbon emissions. doesn't matter how many family members you have, you won't get

to the limit. but with respect to the question -- >> the lights at the game. >> the light at the game i don't think would be a problem, either. epa has acknowledged there is a significant expansion of the permitting obligation under epa's present understanding of her meeting. intoet me try to take this pieces, if i could. let me first talk about months not just about the three percent and then let me try to get back to justice kennedy's question to talk about the expansion of the permitting obligation what epa's actually thinking and doing about that. -- one of theere significant problems is that the options that the american chemistry council have advanced and even that judge kavanaugh has advanced would require an invalidation of or at least a 34nificant revision of epa's year understanding of the "any airf the phrase

pollutant", which they have always interpreted to mean any air pollutant subject to regulation under the act. apply that 34 year long agency interpretation here and get to one of those results. you've got to change it. >> but the 34 year agency interpretation is not a statute. not., it's >> and you're saying rather than alter our 34 yard turkish and, wrong to revise the provisions of the statute. i don't think that's a good trade. >> with all due respect, i don't think that's what the agency is doing. if i could just sort of finish off this. the problem is that if you take the -- if you draw the line either at naaqs pollutants are old other previously regulated pollutants, or if you draw the line at local pollutants but not global pollutants, you're going

to knock out some sources that have been subjected to the permitting requirement previously. >> can i ask you this question about epa's position? this is something i don't understand. on the one hand, epa says that applying the statutory thresholds to greenhouse gases would transform the psd program into something that would be unrecognizable to the congress that enacted the program. isn't that right? >> yes, they did say that. >> on the other hand, epa says, but that's what were going to aim to achieve at some point down the road. >> no, that's a fundamental misconception, justice alito, and i would like to try to clear it up. thisepa's doing is saying is a transition. it's not a rewrite. and the goal of the transition is not to gradually expand the permitting requirement until the got all the dunkin' donuts in america under it. that's not what's going on. in fact, it's the opposite.

what they are saying is, they are taking a look at the standards they used to decide who's eligible for a permit. there looking to change those to the extent they can, consistent with their statutory authority and appropriate chevron deference, to substantially narrow the numbers of people who will be deemed eligible. >> then they're never going to get to the statutory thresholds. i thought epa said were going to work toward that. >> let me give you an example. >> if applying the statutory thresholds asked the program unrecognizable, and yet that's what they're going to aim to do down the road, get to the statutory thresholds, will it become more recognizable at that point customer >> under the nuance there that i think answers your question, the agency has discretion in deciding what constitutes the tons per to emit 250

year. what they have done historically is evaluate that on the basis of an assumption that the facility is operating 24 hours a day -- >> then they will be back to title people -- you get 5, 6 .1 million. that sort of changes -- if that's the question, does in fact this revision give the epa the obligation to impose permit requirements on 41,000 businesses of the size that really are -- constitute at most 10 or 15% of the problem. that's pretty hard to accept. >> what i thought the question was was whether epa had the authority to implement this in a way that epa itself thinks makes sense, which might be, on their

to not impose permitting requirements on tens perhaps millions, of small businesses. i thought that was what the question was. that did seem to be the way they put it. >> it is, but i think the two things converge come a justice breyer. they're trying to get to the point of saying, if you apply now, youards epa uses sweep in all these people. >> they going to get some new standards, but the words they implied toir opinion me when i read them that they're never going to want to put tiny boilers under this because it just doesn't do very much good and it's expensive to administer. that's how i read it. >> that's correct. that's all right, then my question is back -- this is been very helpful. i learned i'm not a net emitter of carbon dioxide.

that means i'm apart and sustainable development. [laughter] so i've learned quite a lot from this and i'd like to learn one 7411thing, which is, look, , remember what the chief justice just said about the 83% and the 86%. , they stillyou lose can regulate a three percent, and if you win you can regulate 86%. if 7411 is over there letting them do precisely what they want, why do you need this? that's the part i have not got a clear answer to in my mind. >> it's the reason i tried to suggest earlier, justice breyer, that the psd program was supposed to work as a compliment together with 7411. for example, if 7411 now is isng used, at least epa contemplating setting standards, greenhouse gas emission standards for power plants.

that's a very significant contributor of greenhouse gases, but it's not the only one. >> but those all in. write complicated standards. right standards that require you to get a psd permit. what's wrong with all that? >> a can do all that, but the problem is that's going to take a lot of time. that was the very reason congress but the psd program into existence in 19 77 was because of the dissatisfaction because of the time it took to go source by source, pollutant by pollutant. >> i just want to make sure that i understood correctly. under 74 -- under 7411, you can require a psd is to mark >> no, you can set a national standard. to thinks just wrong about the psd program is addressing a different kind of problem from the 7411 problem is

that you've got to meet the 7411 standard in your psd application. >> i had a similar issue with what epa did here. beseems to me it would completely responsible and understandable if epa had said look, the 100 and 250 don't work with respect to this category of pollutant, congress did know this kind of pollutant was out there when it wrote those numbers, what was trying to do is distinguish between major and minor e-mail or. the new numbers for this kind of pollutant -- and i understand that epa may have felt like, can we really do that? but the solution that epa came it a completeve discretion to do whatever he wants whenever he wants to come and to be much more problematic than if epa had just said no, and 250, it's 10 times that.

>> they were trying to say let's look at how we define what it means to emit 250 tons per year and see if we can make that a more realistic analysis by going from the 360 five day year hypothesis to figure out how much the source is actually likely to emit, and you could drastically lower the number of sources who would be found to year, that ander try to bring the system into line with the expectations that major emitters would be regulating. gases the onlyse air pollutant for which epa has the authority to change the statutory thresholds? >> well, i'd like to make a point if i could about that. the real problem here is co2. of the six greenhouse gases, the other five you could use the statutory thresholds on without difficulty. is the co2 alone really that

causes the difficulty. >> but could it do this for another pollutant, something other than any of the greenhouse gases? isin fairness, what epa saying here is that we've got an obligation under the statute to regulate. get theapplication to permits out within a year. that's also statutory requirement. and just given the reality of the co2 emission, something's got to give. i don't think they are asserting authority, they are dealing with that'sical problem arisen under the immediate circumstances. >> one of the things that the epa said in the expiration of this rule is that epa could say that psd or title v applies only to certain ghd sources. it's been suggested that that dioxide,uld be carbon

applies only to certain ghd sources and does not apply to the remaining sources. but there didn't seem to be any follow-up of that idea. is carbon cure it dioxide doesn't work, take it out. >> but i think the reason is because that is not going to make -- the carbon dioxide is also huge part of the problem. so you're really not going to beginning to the heart of the problem. and it really is an urgency here, that's part of what's driving epa in this situation is understanding that this is an urgent environmental problem. it is the gravest environmental problem that we face now as far as epa and epa's judgment, and it is one that gets worse with the passage of time. the effects are keenly to of and their delayed, so every year we wait, we make the hole deeper and we create an even greater threat to future generations. the time sorry, i didn't get an

answer to justice alito's question and i think it's an important one. there are currently criteria pollutants under the act. that assume you find out there's a particular substance that does cause harm to ambient -- quality at is not really not already covered, and you for that.naaqs you decide you want to regulate at a different threshold, just like you have here. is this a particular assertion of authority only with respect to greenhouse gases, or doesn't cover any pollutant under the act? >> if you're going to use the day --pproach and as a designate it as a naaqs pollutant, that would include the standard. arean you publish a naaqs greenhouse gases? >> there are significant problems with trying to regulate

that way. it is important to understand, mr. chief justice, that the rim applies to more than just naaqs pollutants. >> there is a pollutant that isn't currently regulated to the point you feel it should we regulated. can you change the 150 threshold for that new pollutant? >> if epa found itself in exactly the same circumstances, where it feels like the statutory definition in pelzer to regulate, it kicks in at 250 and you have to issue a permit, that would require that confluence. >> why would it have to do that? all the time have implicit exceptions, not every statute has such exceptions written in words into it. i mean, a classic example, one after another.

the statute that requires animals to pay 50% on the train does not apply to snails. that's the most common thing in law. so what's the big problem here that everybody seems to have except me. what is the big problem with writing and implicit exception so that you don't regulate tiny little things, which no one normally wants to have regulated. >> if the court were to do that, that would certainly justify the epa's judgment. >> the problem is i will hear , it's a question of what does the law permit, and therefore it is helpful if you can or others think of simpler examples. itself in committed the rulemaking proceedings to try to bring the 250 tons per

year into alignment with the expectation that only large sources will be regulated. that is what epa is committed to. >> i don't have as expensive a notion of reading exceptions into a statute that are not there as justice breyer does, assuming that you can read exceptions, that isn't the issue here. the issue is whether you can read in exceptions unnecessarily when the absurdity in question doesn't flow inevitably from the statute. when the statute can be interpreted another way that would not produce the absurdity. aren't you compelled, where there is ambiguity, to adopt the interpretation of the statute that does not produce of certainty, rather than adopting

the interpretation that produces absurdity and in going around altering the provisions of the contract, of the statute. breyer'sustice bubblegum example, yes, i suppose -- would you have to make an exception for bubblegum in the display window if the statute were subject to two interpretations, one of which would include display windows, and the under -- the other one of which wouldn't. it seems to me of course you would have to adopt the interpretation that didn't include display windows. and that's what's going on here. but there's absurd to, issue is, how's that absurdity to be taken account of? by simply letting epa rewrite the very clear numbers in the statute, or else by adopting a permissible interpretation of the statute that does not lead to that absurdity. and i think that's quite a different question from what we've been discussing.

if io points about that, could. first, that goes to the question of what triggers the permit application. it's only the expansion of the number of permit applicants at even raises this question of the so-called absurdity. it doesn't go to the argument -- the petitioners are making a far more substantial argument that epa lacks any authority to consider greenhouse gas emission ct provision and other sources that have a permit for their emissions of non-greenhouse gases. so it only goes to the question of the scope of the triggering provision, not to epa's authority to use psd to regulate greenhouse gases for entities that are already subject to the permit for other reasons. now, with respect to the trigger, what i would say about that is that the statutory language is any air pollutant. reading massachusetts versus epa, the epa came to the

conclusion at that language necessarily encompasses greenhouse gas emissions. that conclusion is most consistent with the epa's statutory obligations here, because if the choice -- and you can say the choice is between doing something sensible and absurd results. but really, the choice is between throwing up your hands with respect to what epa considers to be the most serious air pollution problem we have are trying to deal with the implication problem that exist -- that'sct to the really the choice here. >> wouldn't be right to say that the rule that justice scalia is referring to only applies if there are alternative interpretations that are consistent with the legislative purpose. there have to be plausible our charge of interpretations of the statute. and reading the phrase any pollutant to mean any pollutant except for greenhouse gases for reasons that have nothing to do with the purposes of the statute

is not a plausible eternity of interpretation. would not be the argument? >> yes, that's exactly the argument and i think that's exactly what the epa did when you read massachusetts versus epa. >> the argument against that is, no, that the statute evidences concern with ambient air quality and requires that to be measured. an agency knowledge is that you cannot possibly measure the effect on ambient air quality of greenhouse gases. not compatibley with the statute to bring greenhouse gases into regulation. -- a guye other is that focus now. it seems to me in my mind that we have two questions and i think they were well stated by justice scalia actually.

the first is, what is the as itative interpretation is applied here. that would be an interpretation that doesn't put greenhouse gases within this psd provision at all. that might have worse consequences than worrying about the interpretation of this trigger provision. so either we have to do the one or the other. either we have to interpret the trigger provision with flexibility so that there are written -- unwritten exception senate, one way or the other, or we have to say you can't do that, and therefore they don't apply to all. which is worse? have i got it right? >> i think that states it fairly. >> i don't think so. it depends on what you mean by unthinkable. is supposed to be unthinkable, that greenhouse gases should not be regulated?

maybe that is unthinkable. but the issue is, is it unthinkable that congress did not intend to regulate greenhouse gases when it enacted the current provisions of the statute? clicks but isn't that the argument? justice scalia's alternative plausible interpretation of the statutes might have been an alternative plausible interpretation of the statutory massachusetts, but it no longer is. buthat's exactly true, also, even before massachusetts, there are significant problems with it. >> here we have a statutory provision that has very specific numbers in the agency is said these numbers are absurd. going to multiply them by 400. in the entire history of federal regulation, what is the best example you can give us of an agency's doing something like that where it has taken a statute with numbers and has crossed them out and written in the numbers that it likes

customer >> i wouldn't characterize it quite that way. i don't have a case that is exactly on point. i think morton against ruiz is a case that's like that in the sense that the agency had an obligation to provide something to a certain population, and it didn't have the funds that made available to provided to the whole population that was statutorily entitled, in made the judgment it may to try to get the program to work. if i could give you a hypothetical -- >> what was that case? morton against ruiz. no container shall be delayed more than three days. if an agency were faced with those kinds of obligations and didn't have the resources to get every container searched within three days, and said what we're going to do is search the

containers that come from places where we think the risk is most likely am i think everyone would think that is a reasonable interpretation of the agency bus charge under the statute. that is essentially what the epa has done. clear, are you saying that if you're denied the authority to seek here, there can be no significant regulation of greenhouse gases under the act. you are not saying that can >> provide somet to more specificity in my answer, if i could. the court has held in american electric power that the epa has the authority to prescribe general national standards. with respect to the psd program, i do want to give the susser is the distinction between the question of what triggers your obligation to get a psd permit versus the your -- situation in which if you are

already subject to a psd permit because you are in meeting one of the regulated pollutants, whether under section 757484 you have to meet the best available control technology requirement, which is phrased in terms of requirement for each pollutant subject to regulation under the act. >> that is the 8386 question. there is triggering and if you are already subject to the permit. the questions about whether the psd program is limited entirely to pollutants that affect local ambient air quality, i just don't think that adds up at the end of the day. epa has been regulating since 1988 under the psd program something called ozone-depleting substances. talked about this a little bit in our brief.

they though up into the atmosphere and eat at the ozone and that creates additional ultraviolet rays which cause cancer and cataracts. that is smoggy los angeles versus montana. certainly greenhouse gases have those kinds of effects because they raise the seat levels that cause flooding in certain places. the sea levels risen, other than massachusetts [laughter] amck certainly massachusetts a but epa has been regulating ozone-depleting substances since 1988. >> i see your argument congress has acquiesced in that. 1990, congress took a substantial amendment of the clean air act. one thing they did was specifically address

ozone-depleting substances. they created a new title vi of they were clearly focused on it and they did not pull ozone-depleting substances out of the program at that time. that is significant because they did pull out hazardous air pollutants which was another new category they created in 19 99. >> they created -- it's not an accident, they were focused exactly on how they were going to be regulated him aside do think it's a quite strong ratification argument. >> i know litigants hate this question. if you were going to lose, what ?s the best way

there is the judge kavanaugh approach, obviously -- >> there is a significant difference between them. >> i got another thought on that subject. earlier, thei said whole problem in terms of expanding the permitting requirement is co2. say thaturt were to any air pollutant cannot be interpreted in the way that epa has interpreted it at the trigger level, to mean what we think it says, and what massachusetts against epa compelled, but if the court disagrees with that, it seems to me that the answer that is least problematic from epa's point of view does the -- is the least leastant and causes the risk of collateral consequences with respect to stab was readily terry programs which go beyond the pollutants under psd, would

be to say that you can read any air pollutant to include co2, because the inclusion of co2 generates a permitting obligation that is out of a card with what congress would have expected. about bact for co2, then? thatjust don't see, given terms.ys unambiguous anybody who is to permit has got to meet that for each pollutant subject to regulation under the chapter, meeting the act. i just don't see hate can get out from under that. >> you've got to follow the plain text of the statute there. >> if the command of the statute t applies to each pollutant subject to regulation -- if epa does set of greenhouse

gas standard for a particular statutory -- stationary source like power plants, and that becomes a condition of the permit. assuming that epa acts under 7411, those, seems to me, have to be an. this is a question about the definition of the trigger. butwe don't agree with it, in trying to faithfully answer your honors question, that's what i think. >> you're reading or your suggested out would mean that that only the major facilities as defined now essentially would -- >> if he took co2 out of the equation, i don't think this -- the expanded scope of the permitting obligation is going

to happen because it's the co2 emissions that expand the scope. and so that's why i'm not endorsing this. based justice breyer said the difference between 83% and 86% is thousands and thousands of people or entities, i should say, not people, of institutions. that going to be the same under the reading that you are proposing? >> pretty close. that i think the reason we would -- the reason the exclusion of co2 seems to be the less least -- the least problematic that the epa does have an established regulatory framework that it that it's -- that applies not pollutants, but to the other pollutants a muscle for a gas it missed and the other things that epa regulates under the psd program. shotnk that's the rifle solution to the extent that the court thinks it's a problem.

>> wouldn't the proper answer be that we're rejecting the entire position to say that these -- there are these other options? those are choices for epa to make. quick certainly that's right. -- i think the argument that as i read judge kavanaugh's opinion and as i understood my friend's argument on behalf of the acc was at the statute essentially compel the conclusion that you had to pick one or the other of those avoidative readings to expanding the permitting obligation. the problem that web thinking about is that there are many other pollutants that epa is later for years and used as a trigger for years to acquire psd be ats, which you would risk of excluding from the program if you were to adopt the acc of the judge kavanaugh reading as triggers, that the problem that the court ought be trying to think about avoiding.

>> i have to say in reading the brief i couldn't find a single precedent that strongly supports your position. brown and williamson is distinguishable for the reasons set forth in the reply brief. what are the cases you want me to side if i write the opinion to sustain your position? >> sustaining the mark -- the argument that the trigger plies, i think there are not a lot of cases, you are right. this is not a situation that arises very often. >> that is not cited in your brief, is it? that is true. here,ould just some up epa did what it did because the problem is confronting is a problem that epa considers to be urgent. >> i don't want to interrupt your summation, but let me just ask this quick question. on the issue of what happens

with a facility that is subject to the psd program because of the emission of other pollutants , the petitioners argued that the permitting process would be entirely different for greenhouse gases because it would make no sense to require monitoring of local air conditions. it would make no sense to try to assess the effect of the mission of the greenhouse gases on the area in the region. could you just give a quick response to that? >> that is just not right. there are multiple pollutants that are currently regulated under psd program. some of them have national ambient air quality standards and the local testing makes sense for those. others don't have national air qualityambient air standards, like sulfuric acid mist, for example, and others. there are standards for those. the way epa has handled that is

they look at the regulations. the regulation says in terms of the monitoring that the statute requires, there's a specific exemption for substances that are otherwise regulated but for orch there is no naaqs related standard so they are just examples a monitoring requirement. there's an announcements -- an analysis requirement. with a do with respect to the is to applyuirement a simple idea. you're not trying in that situation to make sure that the particular emissions are consistent with the overall ambient air quality level. it's a very simple calculus. morris worse, less is better. so with respect to things like sulfuric acid mist, with respect to things like ozone-depleting substances, that is how it has always worked at the state level under the psd program. you look at what the emission levels are and try to get them down. you're not treating greenhouse gases any differently than

ozone-depleting substances or the others that don't have those requirements. in terms of localized effects, i would remind the court about the emc-homer city case from just a few months ago. it's not at all unusual that epa would be regulating emissions in one place because they impose effects hundreds or even thousands of miles away. the pollutants emitted in ohio or kentucky contribute to the air pollution levels in new haven or bangor, maine. that's what the case is all about. so you regulate those pollutants also through the psd program. so you are not in that situation looking just to see what happens in the local area. it's never been the nature of this program. it just doesn't work that way. remind the court in pollution why epa did what he did it is because this is an urgent problem. every year that passes, the problem gets worse and the

threat to future generations gets worse. i think faced with the obligations that epa had, it may the most reasonable choice available to it. thank you. >> you've got five extra minutes, to be fair. >> you should have told me [laughter] that before my summation. [laughter] >> you had already gotten going. you don't think they greenhouse gases should be regulated at 250 tons per year level, right? when you say congress did not intend that, and it would be absurd. quick shift, certainly. alexa what level do you think they should be regulated at? what intel and will principle are you taking from the statue to say were going -- were at 100 now. vermont to aim for 50. if you had all the resources you need, what level would you pick as the proper one? >> i think you would want to look at the definition of what

it means to him it 250 tons per year and then you want to think about the underlying notion that what congress is trying to do is impose these obligations on facilities that are capable of responding to them. they will tend to be facilities that are major in quality. those are the things that are going to guide you in trying to figure out what the number is. i think that is what epa is trying to do. >> the more typical emissions context. >> are you essentially looking for the number that captures the same class of emitters? >> how did the epa settle on

the number? >> they tried to explain that in one of the rulemaking orders. . >> what epa did was say did to 85% of emissions by setting the standards were have set them. >> we haven't said anything about the title five problem which they said was 6.1 million ,ersons are individuals businesses coming into it. how do you get them out of that one?

there would be a good reason for this. the bell that it rang is that agencies have tremendous authority about how they distribute their enforcement of resources. they don't have to reinforce everything against everything. that is the basic principle. they have to put their money where we'll do the most good. it's sort of like missing -- >> it would be a helpful point for us. you,s what they will tell so i think that's the reason. to --ecause it is subject >> in other words, you would be out of it totally and any citizen could say where is your permit. >> right. >> if there are no further questions -- >> thank you, general. five minutes. justice.you, mr. chief

you had asked the solicitor general what that would involve in this kind of situation, and i think your honor gave a hypothetical about light bulbs. your honor should know that the epa instruction to state and local permitting authorities does address lightbulbs in the cafeteria. what is says is that state and local permitting authorities likely do not need to look at whether more efficient light bulbs should be used in a plants cafeteria because that would probably be not worth the burden in terms of the payoff. but the fact that they're talking about it at that level of detail just brings into sharp that when applied to greenhouse gases which is about energy efficiency and not adding technology to control the stuff that comes out of smokestacks is and asking the 90 state and local permitting authorities to decide what needs to be done, and that's what is so different between this and the nsp is program which

functions by setting emissions standards that each plan can then -- >> so what do i do with examples of the brief of the 144 permits that have already been given? people that have managed to come into compliance under bact? it's early not our submission that every single termination by everyone of these authorities is going to be unreasonable or outrageous or is going to reach into the cafeterias. but it is the scope of this is so different in nature and kind than the program which would set efficient standards that people would be able to meet. the second point is that there is a selectivity that the agency considers ambiguous and unambiguous. any air pollutant is ambiguous enough to accommodate any regulated air pollutant. 100 and 250 tons per year, that's really ambiguous because it could mean 100,000.

it has turned the ambiguity on and off so that in combination, it maximizes the agency pastas question, shows that when we talk about what does the least violence to the statute, we have to think about it among other things along the parameter of separation of powers and whether the way in which the agency has perceived it here has arrogated an exceptional and troubling degree of discretion to design its own climate change program. finally, with respect to the different definitions of pollutant, we have proceeded here as if we were defining that particular word in the statute but here is another way to think about the interpretive exercise here and that is brown and williamson. brown and williamson started with the assumption that the definitions in the statute encompassed nicotine in cigarettes, but then it went on to say that giving the fda jurisdiction under those programs over tobacco would be inconsistent with the regulatory structure that congress enacted.

when you did that, it didn't go back to that definition say we have to figure out which word in that definition mean something different than what we originally assumed. interpretatione as a whole conflicted with the statute as a whole and that was sufficient. we think the same is true here. the card has -- the court has no further questions. >> the cases submitted. based today the court issued its decision in the case that partially upheld and partially rejected the epa cost powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. lydia ko reported on the decision saying the ruling nibbles at the epa's greenhouse gas powers that doesn't really affect the agency's overall reach. being 5-4.wound up today the white house held a summit on working families. we heard earlier from the president as well as from vice president joe biden, who helped open the summit, urging corporations and corporate

executives to create family-friendly policies. he says too many families wind up having to choose between their families and their jobs. here are some of his remarks. >> i said look, it's true, i missed whatever it was, 13, 15% of the vote. if you elect me again, i will do it again. [laughter] no, i'm serious. i will never miss a vote they can make a difference. if i have a choice between a procedural vote in my child's parent teachers meeting, i'm going to the meeting. [applause] here is the point. it's not about me. look at the luxury i had. how many of you would be able to do that? [applause] >> i'm no different than anyone of you, for real. i had the ability to do it, you

all want to do it, and i had the ability to make a choice. i was confident. i think that's how almost every american thinks. they think if they only could, if they only could, they would. so folks, look. the fact of the matter is, too many people where it comes down to a choice between doing that parent teachers meeting are going to that championship game, or showing up at that debate, or being there just when your child is sick, having to choose between doing that and their job, not one time, but like many of you, my family has been an incredible consumer of health care cost. i sons were critically injured. my daughter was in traction for a long time. we had the option. we could choose who could stay home.

i could operate from my home. assuming there were not a critical vote. but the point is, those kind of comess, most times it down to not losing your job or not, it comes down to subtle things. it's about, if i don't stay and help finish the project, and not go to my daughter's parents night, they're going to think i don't really want to work hard. they're going to think i really don't care about my job. your employer is not demanding you do it, but if i don't stay -- look, i've had some really incredible people work for me over the years. one time we counted something like 25 rhodes scholars, i had a law firm of 65 people as chairman of the judiciary committee. almost everyone graduated in the top five percent of their class. really smart, smart people. ambitious people.

remember during a really difficult hearing, having to do -- i was conducting on the supreme court. a very controversial hearing, judge bork. a young man, and i'm not going to mention his name, one of the young men who had done most of the research in the background on judge or, he was having difficulty at home. he was having difficulty because he was spending so little time at home for the previous six months and preparations, he was having difficulty in his marriage. the day the hearing a guy namedtunately ron klein who was chief of staff came to me and said so and so has a problem. i said tell him if he comes into work, he is fired. not a joke. that wasn't being noble. it's the right thing to do, but do it from, it could

home. he could be on the phone. he could let us know. and he had to be assured that it would not affect his advancement. that's all employers have to do sometimes is let you know that these subtle choices -- you don't have to have some massive policy. particularly if they are smaller. >> you can see more with vice president joe biden online at www.c-span.org. later today, the first lady is scheduled to speak at the working family summit at 5:30 eastern. to house back in shortly work on bills under suspension of the rules, mainly having to do with energy legislation and then later tonight, a debate on the commodity futures trading commission. for that gavel back end, here's a look at what to expect in congress this week. >> cristina marcos is the

congressional report and joins us on the phone. thanks for making time for us this morning. as far as house and senate floor action this week, what do we expect? what is significant? caller: one is offered by cory gardner of colorado who is against incumbent udall. meanwhile on the senate they will be taking up a rare election-year bipartisan legislation on job training programs. host: tell us a more about that. why is that rare? last week they were going to take up a passage that would fund parts of the

government through fiscal 2015. but it fell apart because they on whether they should subject to a threshold. energy, doestioned that get considered as well when these kind of things, especially when energy is debated on the house floor? it's a big deal especially with the recent epa rule on carbon emissions. there are plenty of house activity hearings this week. note, wearticularly of have heard a lot about this over the last couple of weeks? what is being considered? caller: this is the third late-night prime time hearing on the department of veterans affairs. we are hearing from officials in the department about why veterans of had to wait so long for seeing doctors as well as

collecting benefits they have applied for. as far as politics goes, is it still charges for us democrats and republicans in the issues they bring, or is it more bipartisan in nature? caller: it has become more bipartisan outrage. last week the house and senate both -- the house so far has voted to set up conference negotiations with the senate on each chamber pots veterans affairs reform bill. so essentially negotiators from both house and senate will sit down and hammer out differences between the two bills. that is on its way to becoming legislation. we listen to a couple of hearings coming forward this

week, medicare fraud, sexual violence, autism. of those, what are the standouts that people should be watching for? caller: over in the house oversight committee, there will be hearings from the irs commissioner about some missing e-mails from lois lerner. during the investigation the white house raised -- the iris said they were unable to recover any of lois lerner, who is figure at the center of the targeting controversy, from about two years worth of her 2011, due to april an alleged computer crashed. republicans are not buying it. they say that is conveniently a time that was a critical time in their investigation. democrats are accusing them of engaging in a partisan witchhunt. so you had statement such

as paul ryan expressing his disbelief in what was being said. you expect more of the same at this herring, i suspect. caller: absolutely. -- hel issa subpoenaed appeared before the house ways and means to meet -- committee and he was not subpoenaed to come up, and he still came without needing a subpoena. rest assured it will be a very partisan hearing tonight. you expressed that the work output of congress as far as actual bills being considered an house for activity, will that slow down significantly as we go on? senate, andhe certainly has slowed down a lot in the last several weeks. democrats and republicans cannot come to an agreement on the amendments.

the appropriations bill last there is bipartisan agreement underneath it all, but because they cannot come to agreement on amendments, the republicans are very upset they haven't been able to amend much .egislation congress has blowing up lots of major legislation in the last few weeks. it is not necessarily just that the senate is going to take up in sense of precedents. >> we are asking folks to comment on how to fix congress. this comes from a gallup poll that suggest when it comes to confidence in the institution, only seven percent saying they show that type of thing. do you know for publicans and democrats on both sides are self-aware of this kind of opinion of the body? caller: absolutely.

a lot of them will acknowledge themselves, who are the seven percent who still think we are confident? when you see the large numbers that have decided to retire or step down at the end of the year, a lot of them are saying they don't feel like it's necessarily worth trekking down to washington every weekend and happened to be away from their families if they are not getting a lot done. host: christina hill joining us on the phone -- christina marcos on the hill. thank you. >> the house is about to gavel land. members have seven bills on the schedule for this midafternoon. mostly dealing with energy issues. they plan to vote on those bills at 6:30 p.m. eastern time. after the vote, debate begins on a bill to extend the commodity futures trading commission through fiscal 2018. a number of members will be offering amendments to that measure. the only debate tonight, boats

take place tomorrow. later in the week, the house will consider bills dealing with oil and gas production. one would create a new system the senate is also in today, voting at 5:30, voting on nominations. the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? >> i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill s. 2086. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the by the clerk: an act to address current emergency shortages of propane and other home heating fuels and to provide greater

flexibility and information for governors to address such emergencies in the future. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. petri, and the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. petri: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill before us. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. petri: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in support of s. 2086, the reliable home heating act, which helps states better prepare and respond to regional supply disruptions or shortages of propane and other home heating fuels. the winter of 2013 and 2014 included extreme weather events that led to increased demand for propane, which is used for heating in approximately 12 million u.s. homes and for other home heating fuels.

the extreme weather conditions threaten the lives after livelihoods of those with homes, farms and businesses that depend on heat from propane and other home heating fuels. s. 2086 gives the governor of the state the authority to extend regulatory exemptions during a state of emergency for two additional 30-day periods for a total of 90 days without action from the federal motor carrier safety admferings. the bill requires the administration to provide early warnings to governors if the inventory of residential heating fuel falls below the most recent five-year average for more than three consecutive weeks. the bill also requires the secretary of transportation to conduct a study on the safety impacts of extending the regulatory exemptions. on march 21, 2014, the president signed h.r. 4076, the heat act of 2014 introduced by chairman

bill shuster. it provided immediate relief to states impacted by extreme weather from some federal motor carrier safety regulations until may 31 of this year. s. 2086 provides states the tools needed to address shortages of propane and other home heating fuels during future extreme weather events. the bipartisan bill was introduced by senator thune and another senator and is supported by the national propane gas association, the new england fuel institute, the overnight petroleum markers association, and the petroleum markers association of america. i urge all of my colleagues to support 2086 and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the district of columbia seek recognition?

ms. norton: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. norton: as described by my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the highway safety subcommittee, s. 2086 automatically suspends federal motor carrier safety rules for up to 90 days after a governor of an affected state declares a state of emergency due to a shortage of residential heating fuel. it is true, mr. speaker, that last winter, there were parts of the united states which experienced extraordinarily cold temperatures and extreme winter weather and i hate to predict this, but until we do something about climate change, we're going to see these vast contrasts of the time we've never experienced before. at that time, of course, people are experiencing unusually cold

weather, there is going to be a demand for propane and other home heating fuels. i also, of course, fully support maximum flexibility to ensure timely delivery to fuel -- of fuel to heat homes across the country. certainly in a time of crisis. in march, during that crisis, we passed chairman shuster's heat act, h.r. 4076 but of course today most of the country is in the middle of a heat wave and most of the states have their eyes looking elsewhere. they're watching the congress to see when we will shore up the highway trust fund. they're running out of money. already they have slowed up investments.

and of course in a matter of just a few weeks, we will be running on empty on the highway trust fund. but i was not asked to come to the floor today to ensure that construction projects around the and hundreds of thousands of americans will be reimburse sod workers can stay the job and communities can upgrade their infrastruck schur. i was asked to come today to the floor to pass an exemption for home heating fuels, even though it's 90 degrees outside in most much of the country. last winter, during the actual time of the emergency, they acted promptly to issue exemptions for truck drivers delivering home heating fuels to drive for additional hours to get supplies to customers as quickly as possible. and then they acted promptly to

extend the exemptions after the initial 30 day period. therefore, i must say, i do not see any evidence of why this legislation is needed or warranted. further, by automatically waiving motor carrier rules for up to 90 days, the legislation removes any safety consideration from the exemption decision. mr. speaker, our surface transportation system has pressing needs, as i speak, that require congressional action in the immediate term. yesterday, perhaps. instead, we keep coming to the floor to chip away at truck safety rules? i will not oppose the legislation under consideration, but i do believe calling up this legislation today is unnecessary and unproductive while we are staring a deadline -- and i must

say, i think it is more aptly called an emergency every day for replenishing the highway trust fund. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. petri: mr. speaker, to yield such time as he may consume to my well-respected colleague on the -- and the voice of northern wisconsin, sean duffy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. duffy: i appreciate the gentleman from wisconsin for yielding. i don't want to engage in a debate on global warming, especially after the winter we had in wisconsin last winter, but the bottom line is, last winter, it was incredibly cold in wisconsin. and we saw home heating fuel prices for some of my constituents go up by four

times. that was even if they were able to get home heating fuels. i don't think this is the end of it because there's been a war on energy. and that war on energy makes it more difficult for my constituents to access energy. i think we have to leave those debates aside right now and look at, in the current structure, can we have some reform that actually helps people across the ountry when these crises amount. so what's done, it doesn't make us look to the department of transportation and last winter, they were quick to act. we don't have to look for congress to have some quick legislation to minimize the trucking hours of service so we can get fuel in to places like northern wisconsin. what we're going to do is empower governors, let governors notice when there's a crisis and let them move quickly so we can have one piece of this -- piece of the burden ealeavitts --

alleviated, the hours of service requirement stork our trucks can go to the places where we have home heating fuel and bring it to wisconsin. we can bring in more supply. we have people in wisconsin who have a hard time paying their energy bills when we have normal prices but when prices go up by fur times or when it's 40 below and they can't get home heating fuel, this is a crisis. any day we have to wait for the department of transportation or for congress to act is a day that we have prices continuing to go up or we don't have access to our consumers. to our constituents. to our people. so this is a commonsense approach that leaves a global warming debate aside, the war on energy aside, and looks to our governors, gives them authority to make decisions in this one small piece, to allow the hours of service to be waived in these emergencies, we can get fuel to places where they have a shortage. i think this makes sense. there'll be plenty of time to debate the greater energy issues that we have in the couldn't re.

and i think that's a debate we have to have. but that's not the place here. and the debate on global warm, we can have that one too. especially after the winter we had in wisconsin last winter. this makes sense. let's empower governors, let's make sure we protect those americans who live in the northern region of the country that rely on home heating fuel to heat their homes. let's make sure we are going to allow them access, by way of their governor, and the governor's quick action. i appreciate the house bringing up this action from senator thune and urge its adoption. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. petri, continues to reserve. the gentlewoman from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: mr. speaker, i don't know about global warming, but virtually every scientist with any expertise agrees that climate change is occurring, not

just in the colder parts of the country, but all over the world. the only debate now is whether it's too late and whether we can manage it, not whether it's occurring. the gentleman thinks it was cold in wisconsin last winter, let us keep delaying doing anything on climate change and let's see if he'll be in a position to do anything for his constituents. i remind the speaker that every time there has been a need, the department of transportation has not only acted, it has acted promptly. and that's what an administrative agency is for. that's why we have administrative agencies, because you can't keep running to the floor where you need two houses in order to deal with crises. nevertheless, we do not oppose this legislation. but we do think it's our duty to remind the house that there is

an emergency pending and that if we go home, certainly for august recess, without attending to it, the bottom will fall out of the highway transportation safety bill. and i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. petri is recognized. mr. petri: i urge all members to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin has yielded become. all time is expired. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate bill 2086. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the notion reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the -- for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition?

>> i move suspend the rules and has h.r. 4092, streamlining energy efficiency for schools act of 2014, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: union calendar number 355, h.r. 4092, a bill to amend the energy policy and conservation act to establish the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy as the lead federal agency for coordinating federal, state and local assistance provided to promote the energy retrofitting of schools. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. kinzinger: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislate i days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection. mr. kinzinger: i yield myself such time as i may consume. h.r. 4092 directs the secretary of mortgage have a clearing-house of funds and tools to help energy retrofitting projects for schools. in doing so, it directs the secretary to coordinate with appropriate federal agencies on a collaborative effort to streamline communications and promote available programs and financing mechanisms. schools spend approximately $6 billion each year on energy costs, making it the next largest expenditure after personnel costs. well-designed energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements can stabilize or reduce these operating costs. in fact, the most efficient cools -- schools use three times less energy than the least efficient schools. h.r. 4092 makes it easier for schools to access information on federal programs and financing tools for pursuing such energy improvements. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes is recognized. mr. sarbanes: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. . mr. sarbanes: i want to rise in support of this bill, available to help schools energy-efficient, develop and finance energy efficiency distributed generation and energy retrofitting projects, and i congratulate congressman cartwright. this is a very thoughtful bill. it has broad stakeholder support. it makes a lot of common sense because there are these programs out there that are available to assist our schools but sometimes connecting the dots is the challenge, and this clearing-house will help solve for that. this bill received unanimous bipartisan support in the energy and commerce committee, and it's my pleasure now, mr. speaker, to yield five minutes to the sponsor of the bill, mr. cartwright of pennsylvania.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. mr. cartwright: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman from maryland for yielding. i'd like to thank congressman welch from vermont for his leadership on this bill as well. it's no secret that congressman welch is one of the great champions in the house on the issue of energy efficiency and it has been my pleasure to work with him on this. i'd also like to thank chairman upton and ranking member waxman for their support in guiding this bill through committee. this legislation is a great example of what we can do when we work together in a bipartisan fashion. i'd like to thank the majority and minority staffers. it's to their credit that they worked to craft an amended version of this bill that everybody could agree on. it was great to see this bill pass unanimously out of the committee. k-12 school districts spend billions on their energy bills every year.

approximately $6 billion a year, according to energy star, second only to personnel costs, exceeding the costs of textbooks, exceeding the cost of supplies. energy expenses are one of the few costs that can be reduced while at the same time improving classroom instruction. in fact, high performance schools can lower the school's operating costs by up to 30%. there are numerous federal initiatives already available at the schools to help them become more energy efficient. however, these programs are spread across the federal government, making it challenging, time consuming and costly for schools to identify and take full advantage of these programs, and i've heard it said that you practically need a degree in library science to research and find all of these programs. first introduced in the senate as s. 1084 by senators mark udall and susan collins, the

bipartisan streamlining energy efficiency for schools act aims to provide a coordinating structure for schools to help them better navigate available federal programs and financing options. this legislation doesn't spend an additional dime, and it keeps decisionmaking authority with the states, with the school boards, with the local officials. the bill establishes a clearing-house through the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy, which will disseminate information on federal programs and financing mechanisms that may be used to develop energy efficiency, distributed generation and energy retrofitting projects for schools. i urge my colleagues to pass this bill and, again, i think the gentleman from maryland for yielding and for his assistance in this matter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania

yields back his time to the gentleman from maryland. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. kinzinger: mr. speaker, i'll inquire if the gentleman from maryland is prepared to close as i am. mr. sarbanes: i am prepared to close. mr. kinzinger: i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. sarbanes: mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to support congressman cartwright's bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. kinzinger: mr. speaker, i thank our colleagues across the aisle. i urge the approval of this, and i yield back the balance of my time. both eaker pro tempore: gentlemen having yielded back the balance of their time, all time has expired. the question now is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4092, as amended. those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the

motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. kinzinger: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 316, collinsville renewable energy production act. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: an act to reinstate and transfer certain hydroelectric licenses and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of , rtain hydroelectric projects senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. kinzinger: mr. speaker, thank you. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and xtend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the record on the bill. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, so ordered. mr. kinzinger: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kinzinger: h.r. 316 would provide the federal energy regulatory commission or ferc with limited authority to reinstate two terminated hydroelectric licenses and transfer them to the town of canton, connecticut. the licenses are associated with the upper and lower collinsville dams. both projects are under megawatt each. and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois reserves the baffle his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland -- reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. sarbanes: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sarbanes: i ask my colleagues to support the collinsville hydropower act. it would reinstate licenses for two hydroelectric projects on the collinsville dam and transfer it to the town of canton, connecticut.

this noncontroversial but very, very important legislation has passed the house by voice vote in three consecutive congresses and has now passed the senate with a few nonsubstantive changes. it's high time to get this bill to the president's desk, mr. speaker. with that i'd like to yield five minutes to the sponsor of the bill, ms. esty of connecticut. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for five minutes. ms. esty: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank my good friend and colleague from maryland, congressman sarbanes, as well as the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger, for their roles in bringing this bill to the floor today. mr. speaker, i rise as a proud sponsor of the collinsville renewable energy promotion act. this bill provides, as has been noted, the federal energy regulatory commission, commonly known as ferc, to reinstate and transfer the licenses to two dams to the town of canton nord to redevelop hydropower at each of these two facilities that have been dormant since 1966. the upper and lower

collinsville dam on the farmington river were first built in the 18th and 19th centuries to power an ax manufacture. although this business closed in the 1960's, the dams have remained in our -- and are a lasting symbol of the manufacturing history of the farmington valley. today's legislation provides canton the opportunity to create local clean energy and to stem late local energy development along the farmington river. as provided in the senate amendment to h.r. 316, canton would need to file an application for approval with ferc that describes the town's qualifications to hold these licenses and to operate the dams. it would require the town to be subject to the same conditions as in the original licenses as well as any additional terms that ferc may deem necessary after reviewing the application. i'm aware that there are legitimate environmental concerns about the impact on the river and the surrounding ecosystem's health. these concerns are reflected in

part with the addition of fish ladders to the hydrodams in the ensuing years since the closing of the facility. to address those concerns, ferc would need to update the environmental impact statement provided for in the original licenses before they could be reinstated, extended and transferred to the town. if the commission, under the authority, provided in this bill, approves the application to reinstate these permits, the upper and lower collinsville dams would provide nearly two megawatts of power. that is enough to power more than 1,500 homes. it's important for me to acknowledge that the passage of this bill today is only possible because of the work and support of many others who have labored over this for many years. first, i want to thank senator chris murphy, my colleague, friend and neighbor who championed this issue for several sessions here in the house and our senior senator, richard blumenthal, for their leadership and sponsorship of the senate amendment which is

before us here today. my thanks goes out to chairman whitfield as well as chairman upton and ranking members waxman and rush and to their staffs for their bipartisan support to advance this legislation. i also want to thank, first selectman richard bar low, for all he's done -- barlow, for all he's done to spear head this effort. as i mentioned a year and a half ago when the bill first came to the floor, i want to thank art and mark, environmental and community leaders who sadly are no longer with us but who championed this effort for many years, and we could not be here today without their efforts. mr. speaker, roughly 5,000 bills had been introduced in the house of representatives this congress. of those 5,000 pieces of legislation, this bill, h.r. 316, represents just the 167th bill which hopefully will pass both this house and the senate. i'm honored and humbled to be able to work with colleagues across the aisle in this congress to advance clean

energy legislation that empowers local communities, to harness local resources, to produce renewable electricity and at the same time supports and advances local economic development. there is much more than we can and should do to advance energy production and to protect our environment, but today is an excellent start. i urge my colleagues to support the motion to concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 316, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. kinzinger: mr. speaker, i'd say this is a good bill. i'd urge my colleagues to support it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. sarbanes: mr. speaker, i, too, would like to congratulate ms. esty of connecticut. this is an important bill. i salute her for her persistence, and with that i yield back my time, urging my colleagues to support. the speaker pro tempore: all

time having been yielded back, the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass -- suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendments to h.r. 316. those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the senate amendment is agreed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. kinzinger: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. kinzinger: i do. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking the vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered -- the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. kinzinger: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4801, to require the secretary of energy to prepare a report on the impact of

thermal insulation on both energy and water use for pottable hot water. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. union calendar number 354, h.r. 4801, a bill to require the secretary of energy to prepare a report on the impact of thermal insulation on both energy and water use for potable hot water the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. kinzinger: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and xtend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the record on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kinzinger: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may

consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kinzinger: i thank the speaker for the time today to discuss h.r. 4801, the thermal insulation efficiency improvement act. today, millions of gallons of water are wasted due to heating and cooling losses that could be increased through the use of thermal insulation. the purpose of this legislation is to help identify opportunities in which we can maximize energy and water opportunities through the minimalization of waste. with the federal government being the single largest consumer, thermal insulation has the potential to be very significant in the amount of resources both natural and financial that can be saved. for example, we've seen with the bet -- what the benefits of me manacle maintenance and commercial buildings can be with savings potentially topping $4.8 billion annually. that's enough energy savings to light nearly four million homes per year. up to this bill, thereof' only been small scale studies to show the beb fits of such

insulation can have -- benefits of such insulation can have on water and energy resources. the efficiency is tremendous as has been shown through the use of mechanical insulation but this has not been demonstrated on a large scale. that's why i introduced h.r. 4801 with congressman mcnerney. this legislation demonstrates the benefits of thermal insulation, not only to the private sector, but to show the federal government how it can increase energy efficiency and cost savings by applying these tech netion on our federal facility -- tech netion on our federal facilities. it has the department of energy to compile a study on the impact of thermal insulation on hot and cold water systems in federal buildings. i believe thermal insulation in our federal facilities is both a relatively simple yet cost-effective way to reduce heat gains and losses that results money going up in thin air. estimates also show that thermal insulation saves up to 500 times more energy over its

life span than its costs which translates into a fairly generous return on energy efficiency. thermal insulation saves energy, water and money. once again, i'd like to thank the speaker for the time to discuss the bill on the floor today and i urge its passage and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. sarbanes: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sarintains -- sarbanes: this -- mr. sarbanes: this bill reduces -- talks about the impact of thermal insulation in buildings. thermal insulation can save taxpayers money and reduce pollution. this bill would ensure that the department of energy quantifies those potential savings so that the federal government can make

commonsense energy efficiency investments. the bill has brd stakeholder support and was reported by voice vote in the energy and commerce committee. again i congratulate my colleagues for their collaboration on this bill and i urge my colleagues in the full house to support it. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. sarbanes: may i inquire if the majority has any more speakers? with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is ecognized. >> i thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and i urge passage and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all

time having expired, the question is, bill the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4801. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass s. 1044. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the titeofle - title of the bill. a bill to s. 1044, instruct that a memorial be posted with the words president roosevelt prayed with the -- prayed on d-day.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings and the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. tsongas, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, ordered. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. s. 1044 authorizes the department of the interior to place a plaque in the area of the world war ii memorial with the inscription of the words president frank line roosevelt prayed on the morning of d-day. this is especially appropriate because only days ago, we commemorated the 70th anniversary of d-day and the tremendous sacrifice of americans and allied forces on that day. i would like to note that there has been some controversy in recent years over the omission of the words, quote, so help us god, unquote, from the

inscription of roosevelt's address to congress following pearl harbor. this will go to addressing those concerns. the inscription will be modest in size to complement the memorial and will be paid for through private fundraising efforts. our colleague from ohio, mr. johnson, should be commended for authoring and moving a house companion measure of this worthy bill in the last two congresses but this is a senate bill, nevertheless, the gentleman from ohio has his fingerprints all over this and i commend him for that. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts rise? ms. tsongas: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to comment on the legislation before us. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. tsongas: as chairman hastings has said, s. 1044 directs the secretary of the

interior to install a plaque or inscription in the area of the world war ii memorial with the the 500-word prayer franklin d. roosevelt addressed to the nation shortly after the d-day invasion began. this authorizes the use of private contributioners in completion of this work and prohibits the use of federal funds. i have several concerns with the legislation, including the fact that the addition of the prayer could take away from the original intent of the existing memorial which is to honor the brave members of the armed forces who served in world war ii, including my father who survived the attack on pearl harbor. however, i would like to thank the sponsors of the bill for their willingness to work with the administration, to allow for flexibility in determining the design and low keags of the plaque and inscription. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the author of the

companion house bill of this legislation, the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you, mr. chairman. today i rise in strong support of senate 1044, the world war ii memorial prayer act, legislation introduced by senator rob portman and that recently passed the senate by unanimous consent. i introduce company -- introduced companion legislation in this session of congress and in the 112th session. in fact, the house passed my legislation on january 24, 201, by a vote of 386-26. unfortunately, the senate failed to act in 2012. however, on the eve of the 70th anniversary of d-day this year, the senate came around and passed this legislation. once we passed this bill -- we pass this bill today, it will go to the president's desk and i hope he wastes no time signing

it into law this legislation directs the secretary of the interior to install in the world war ii memorial a suitable plaque or inscription with the words president franklin roosevelt prayed with the nation on the morning of the d-day invasion this prayer, which has been entitled "let our hearts be stout" gave solace, comfort and strength to our nation and our bravor worse as we fought against tyranny and oppression. the memorial was built to honor the 16 million who served in the armed forces of the united states during world war ii and the more than 400,000 who died during the war. prior to introducing the legislation in 2011, i spoke to many world war ii veterans in ohio and asked them if they thought putting this prayer on the memorial would be appropriate. the answer was a resounding yes. it seems to me that if the remaining veterans of world war ii are supportive of the prayer willing added, we as a nation should honor that request. you don't have to take my word for it, though, because two years ago, poppy fowler a

constituent of mine, testified before the committee in favor of this legislation. poppy is now 90 years old, 90 years young, and served three years, 10 days, one hour and 10 minutes in the united states navy during world war ii. he flew 35 missions in air group 2 air fighter. i had the pleasure of escorting poppy on the -- on an honor flight to visit the world war ii memorial and we became friends. here's a brief exernt of his testimony at that hearing. i quote. i feel with no doubt that it would be appropriate that this prayer be inscribed in some manner at the world war ii memorial. those reading the prayer will be able to recall the sacrifices made by our military and all those on the home front this prayer came at a perilous time yet it was answered in victory at a dear cost of lives.

today, this prayer can pertain to any military action, under present circumstances, it is also appropriate, end quote. i don't think anyone in this body could be more succinct and articulate than mr. fowler. like poppy, i have no doubt that the prayer should be included among the tributes to the greatest generation memorialized on the national mall. it is vitally important that the president sign this is legislation as quickly as possible because time is of the essence. as some may know, there is estimated to be just over 1.5 million world war ii veterans still living. and furthermore, it is estimated that roughly 600 world war ii vets are dying every day. in other words, each week that goes by that this legislation does not become law, approximately 4,000 more world war ii vets will have passed away without seing this prayer added to their memorial.

i want to thank chairman hastings around chairman bishop for their hard work and efforts to get to where we are today. they have been championed of -- champions of this legislation over the past three years and we wouldn't be here without their help. i strongly encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes on this legislation to and take this opportunity to honor the greatest generation by adding this prayer to the world war ii memorial. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington -- the gentleman from massachusetts -- the jerusalem from massachusetts is recognized. ms. tsongas: i urge my colleagues to vote know on tissue no on this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from massachusetts yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. this is a good piece of legislation. the last two congresses, both bodies have acted on this. it's now our time to pass this

legislation and get it to the president's desk. with that, i urge adoption of the legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired, the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 1044. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rues are suspended -- the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in fare of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient numbering are viz -- having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this -- n will be postponedful postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4002.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 310, h.r. 4002, a bill to revoke the charter of incorporation of the miami tribe of oklahoma at the request of that tribe and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. tsongas, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: h.r. 4002, sponsored by our colleague from oklahoma, mr. mullin is a one-line bill to grant a request submitted by the miami tribe of oklahoma to revoke its charter of incorporation issued in 1940

under a 1936 act of congress. the charter of incorporation is a new deal legal -- new deal era legal instrument through which a stribe may administer its business activities. however the tribe never used its corporate charter because it imposes undesirable restrictions on its activities. it instead manages its business activities pursuant to the authority of the tribal cushion. only -- of the tribal constitution. only congress can revoke this charter. nder the tribe's express request, the representative of the tribe sponsored h.r. 4002. a hearing was held, the department of interior testified it has no objection to the bill and we see no reason for any member to object to it either. so i commend my colleague from oklahoma for performing this

important constituent service and i urge my colleagues to pass this bill and i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? ms. tsongas: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. seungas: this revokes at the request of the miami tribe oklahoma a corporate -- ms. this revokes at the request of the miami tribe of oklahoma to better manage their own affairs and pursue business relationships with private entities. for some tribes, these corporate charters have proven unnecessary and end up hindering their business opportunities as they inevitably come up in negotiations with private

entities and are looked upon with suspicion. the charter must be revoked by an act of congress, and mr. mullin, on behalf of his constituents, is simply complying with the tribe's request through this bill. similar bills have passed over the years without event. i ask my colleagues to stand with me in support of this noncontroversial bill. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. mullin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. mullin: thank you, chairman. i rise today in support of legislation that aims to help out one of my local tribes, the miami tribe of oklahoma. i was approached by chief lankford at his request. i crafted this bill to remove a cleart of the miami tribe of oklahoma. the bill is needed because these charters can only be revoked through an act of congress. the tribe has said this

outdated charter often hinders businesses and economic development. it imposes restrictions on operations of business activities that are unrealistic in today's business environment. my bill removes the charter and those unneeded barriers for business for this tribe. i support all -- i ask all my colleagues to support this, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back his time to the gentleman from washington. the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized. : thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: this is a good piece of legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time has been yielded back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4002. those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 412, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 120, h.r. 412, a bill to amend the wild and scenic rivers act to designate segments of the mainstem of the nashua river and its tributaries in the commonwealth of massachusetts for study for potential addition to the national wild and scenic rivers , and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. tsongas:, each will control 20 -- ms. tsongas each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, h.r. 412 authorizes the national park service to study 32 1/2 miles of river in massachusetts and new hampshire for inclusion in the national wild and scenic river system. the legislation requires that in the course of the study the national park service consider the effect of designating a -- of designation of recreation uses, such as hunting and fishing, but could consider impacts of energy production and transmission. i'd like to note that this legislation exempts the 4 t.p.p. 8 mile segment which is e subject of a licensing issue. h.r. 412 requires the study to take steps to inform the public of the consequences of future designation may bring. the study will identify all authorities that could be utilized to take property through eminent domain and

those authorities that compel the park service to involve itself in local zoning. property owners must not be left in the dark to the result of this federal designation on their property. for the study process to be authentically derived from the community, the facts and limitations on property rights must be revealed in the process. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts rise? ms. tsongas: i rise in support of my legislation, h.r. 412, the national river wild and scenic river study act, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. tsongas: first, i want to thank chairman hastings for bringing this legislation to the floor. as we all know, chairman hastings will be retiring at the end of this year, so i want to especially thank him for his service on the natural resources committee, and i wish him all the best. i also want to thank ranking member defazio, subcommittee chairman bishop and

subcommittee ranking member grijalva for their support of this legislation. the history and development of the towns and cities in the third district of massachusetts has been defined by the many rivers that course through these unique communities. from the mighty merrimack river that supported the birth of the industrial revolution in lowell, to the conquered river where the famous shot was heard, we play an important role in connecting our communities. but time and development have not always been kind to these rivers. beginning in the 1700's and continuing to just a few decades ago, paper, shoe and textile factories were constructed along the nashua river and many other rivers in the area. the strong currents of the rivers powered the factories and made their success possible, but at the same time the factories were releasing industrial waste right back into the river, polluting the very source of their success. by the mid 1960's, the nashua

river was one of the most polluted rivers in the nation. in fact, the river could change color almost daily because of the inks and dyes released into the river by the paper factories. ut in 1965, one third district resident realized something had to be done. she formed the nashua river cleanup committee toward cleaning up the river and protecting the along its banks. thanks to her work and the continued work of the nashua river watershed association, the nashua river has become -- has come a long way since the 1960's. pollution from the mills has been cleaned up, new sewage treatment plants now keep sewage out of the river and more than 8,000 acres of land and 85 miles of greenway along the river banks have been permanently conserved. i can't praise enough all the dedicated residents, volunteers and association staff who have spent countless hours working to make sure that the nashua

river can once again be an asset and resource to the communities through which it passes. but there is still much work to be done and that is why i partnered with the nashua river watershed association to introduce h.r. 412, a bill that will initiate a three-year study to determine whether roughly 28 miles of the nashua river and its trish ue tears an be -- trish tears can be -- tributaries can be associated with wild and scenic river. stakeholders will work together to form a plan to protect the nashua river. every town through which the nashua river passes, in addition to several local environmental organizations support the adoption of this legislation. additionally, my office just received the results of a reconnaissance survey conducted by the national park service. the park service found that, quote, the elements for a successful wild and scenic river study process for the nashua river and its

tributaries in massachusetts are in place, end quote. miles of the nearby rivers were designated as wild and scenic rivers. since then we have' seen how this designation can help protect not only the quality of the rivers but the quality of the recreational activities that they support. it is my hope that the wild and scenic designation can be expanded to the nashua river so that we can see the same successes there. the study that h.r. 412 will initiate is essential to starting this process. in closing, i'd like to again thank chairman hastings and chairman bishop for bringing this bill to the floor. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from massachusetts reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i have no requests for speakers. i'm prepared to yield back if the gentlelady is prepared to yield back. ms. tsongas: thank you.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from massachusetts yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague from massachusetts for her kind words on this. i know that she's been working on this legislation for the past at least two congresses and she knows that some of us on our side of the aisle have some concerns with that, but working with her, we have legislation that we can support and i urge adoption of this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired, the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 412 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house

a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, i have the honor to transmit a sealed envelope received from the white house on june 20, 2014, at 2:37 p.m., and said to contain a message from the president whereby he submits a copy of a notice filed earlier with the federal register continuing the emergency with north korea first declared in executive order 13466 of june 26, 2008. signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read the message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergency act, 50 u.s.c. 1622-d provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the president

publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to north korea that was declared in executive order eo-13466 of june 26, 2008, expanded in scope in eo-13551 of august 30, 10, and addressed further in o-13570 of april, 2011, is continue beyond effect of june 24, 2014. the use of fissile material on the peninsula north korea and the government of north korea that imperil u.s. armed forces, allies and trading partners in the region continue to -- unusual and extraordinary

threat to the national security foreign policy and economy of the united states. for this reason i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency with respect to north korea. signed sincerely, barack obama, 2014. te house, june 20, the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately host: joining us now is jordan

rau on the kaiser health news senior correspondent. your latest piece takes a look at patient safety as part of the affordable care act. what is the connection? guest: they have a number of different programs intended to approve programs. is the newok that program that will be starting in the fall that will penalize a quarter of the nation's hospitals that have two high rate of infection in patient harms. host: why did the act center on those things specifically? .uest: this is a big issue one in 25 patients get than affection. one in eight gets a condition such as a slip or fall or blood clot.

it is very expressive -- expensive for the patience. they add a lot to the health-care system. this was a way to use the purchasing power of medicare, , toh is the biggest insurer incentivize hospitals to put more emphasis on doing a better job. ?ost: what are the main causes human air or are things attached t? it jaco guest: it really varies. urinarydstream and tract infection, a lot of it has to do with the long tubes to inject chemotherapy or take you -- blatter -- you you're an out of the bladder. often times they are left in far too long. sometimes from convenience and other times because it is too hard to get in and out.

for other stuff there was a lot of complicated issues and do not have the roots of them. hospitals have studied some of these for a long time. some of them not so long. one of the challenges is they are changing. you are getting a new strain of bacteria and germs more resistant to antibiotics and harder to fight. the other issue is readmission. the center for medicaid services, when it comes to readmission rates, re-hospitalizations, re-hospital i within 30 days of a discharge, that increased in 2013. the rate was 18.5% in 2012. about one hundred 50,000 fewer readmissions. talk about them overall. why does this factor into concerns under the affordable care act? >> readmissions are very expensive. hospitals traditionally have had financial incentive.

as you mentioned, very common thing, particularly right after a patient has left. two years ago the first of the programs created by the affordable care act was instituted. medicare began penalizing two thirds of the hospitals. this year increasing up to three percent of the payments. the government said that has led ofa decreased in the number readmissions. that program was phased in and another program looked up more quality issues such as patient death and patient ratings. this is the third piece. host: our guest to talk about issues that patient safety. you want to ask him questions about what goes on when it comes patient safety. if you want to ask him a question -- question, here are

the lines (202) 737-0002, (202) 737-0001 for democrats and independents (202) 628-0205. youran also tweet us questions or comments. send us an e-mail as well. the hospital gets fined. how did they respond to the programs put in place? guest: of resignation and objection. a lot of the hospitals feel penalties are not precise enough. that they are getting punished because they have much more sick patients or other factors. there is some of that. overall i think hospitals have seen this is the way it is. congress has passed the law and has several euros -- several years to prepare. a lot of them taking action and things they can address the most, readmissions. a lot of hospitals very active in setting up new programs to follow the patience.

giving patients who may not be able to afford the dedication, getting it for free. your colleague writes 2600 hospitals could be affected just on the readmission portion alone. guest: readmission, yes. trying to remember the exact number. in the 1500s. treatede all hospitals yes.ly? guest: there is some adjustment to the risk portion if you have a graded number -- greater number than infections but everyone can get the same penalty. one concern about the new program penalizing the conditions is the teaching hospitals will overwhelmingly be the hardest hit. 54% of those in the nation have received what are called preliminary penalties, which medicare has said he have not finished the calculations but

along the way this is where you are. so the associations that represent them are very concerned there is something particularly that they are doing that is not being fairly factored in. host: a viewer says -- preventative care, not so much. a lot of time hospitals have given patience the discharge papers. you have been here, follow the instructions. sometimes they do not do it. sometimes they do not understand the instruction. that is the major preventative thing. along with giving some education and setting up of doctors appointment for a follow-up appointment. is onf what is going on the far end. caller: yes.

i wanted to know whether united health care have bought kaiser. kaiser health news is not related at all to kaiser permanente. no relationship to the insurer at all. so i do not have the answer to that. caller: good morning. i am just joining you. i am wondering if what you were just talking about limiting readmissions, if that could possibly cause hospital institutions to lie or reject patients similar to what happened with the ba -- va scanda. guest: probably not. it has not been much concern

about that. a lot of the patients are your run-of-the-mill patients. ones that come in for heart attack and ones that come in for heart failure, pneumonia. hospitals cannot just turn them away at the door. that has not been a major concern so far. gina on the independent line. -- gene. caller: good morning. i am a registered nurse of 36 years. i do home health care. one difficulty i find is with the standard of care, patients are often, particularly elderly patients are discharged home to people who do not have the foggiest idea what to do with those folks, and even though they have been given instructions, it does not have a necessarily good outcome. has been theree

has been a major cutback on home health care registered nurses being able to go out and monitor those patients. so what i would like there is much to see -- host: go ahead and keep going. my has-been just turned this up. i apologize. what i am saying is that it is the mosticult for even critical patients to get a registered nurse to come in and andajor dressing changes family members are not equipped to handle. that ai think it is true lot of the problems that have been are in the home and patients are discharged. it is obviously cheaper to treat them and if you can keep them

out of the recuperation facilities, it is a great thing. there are pilot programs medicare has started to try. to sendo find new ways people to the homes, not just nurses but in some cases physicians to bring back the long dead housecall. to the extent they can do this and a cost-effective way it will be a win for everyone. >> when it comes to patient complications, decreased by nine percent from 2010 to 2012. 130 two complications for 1000 hospital discharges. 2010 145 complications. how does this get compiled? who theesponsible you go guest: information varies from place to paste. cms uses medicare billing records. all of the hospitals submit the

bills and then they analyze them. fairly archaic method. one of the problems with tracking all of these is anyone in the hospital knows how google or netflix is better organized technologically than the hospital. so we do not have very good access to patient charts. not a lot of standardization. it is hard to get accurate information. cms uses the best thing for them. host: new york. republican line. caller: hello? ok. ofive on the south shore long island. i see the urgent care centers popping up all over the place. open from saturdays and sundays, most days of the week" 9:00 at night. they open early in the morning. i believe they are relieving the

emergency room. it is because of the affordable care act? do you have any information on that? i do not think most of that change has to do with the affordable care act. i do not think most of that change has to do with the affordable care act. emergency rooms are extremely expensive. weights can be hideous. a lot of the effort is within the industry and market to find cheaper other ways to address patients who have the problems. host: from arkansas, mike on the independent line,'caller: but it needsutside to be told. here in texarkana we have two major hospitals. i had a stroke a few years back

and my wife told me the story because i did not know it. admission.ter i was knocked out. the doctor came in after that and ask my wife to what happened and spent within three years -- three minutes in the room. and was billed for three consoles. did not examine me. did not take my blood pressure except asked my wife what happens. the bill paid 400 $85,000 and 500 $65,000 for a doctor coming in and asking what happened. 485,000 and $565,000. guest: i think consultation's and dr. spending holiday time

with patience is obviously in short supply. i am not asand va butr with the ba -- in general financial agreements do not encourage -- encourage doctors to spend a lot of time with patients. this is a common complaint that they do not get quality time. [indiscernible] as far as he admission, how does that affect hospital staff? i assume you have the? how much of that is volume and the busyness of the hospital? guest: you mean whether they have higher rates of admission? i don't know if that has to do with volume. there are incentives to fill. the majorst part factor that has been influencing readmissions is hospitals tend to have a lot of poor patients

and higher admission rates. the reason for that, is it fair to hold the hospital accountable for that. the patients leave, and if you are pursuing a poor urban area, you do not have access to or the ability to afford the kind of food you need to get better and the social structure to make sure you are taking medicine. sometimes you cannot afford the medicines. that has tended to be the determining factors. host: pennsylvania on the democrats line. iller: are you talking to me? am referring to an article in the kaiser health news on june 18. hospital observation care can be costly for medicare patients. of the penalties that medicare is imposing, what is they are not being

admitted. you can be in the hospital for several days and find out your care is strictly observation and for medicare patients, strictly him on medicare. low medicare population. that leaves them with quite a problem if they happen to be discharged run their from a nursing home. the nursing home is not covered a cousin in patient care is required. the hospital not required to tell you you are in a observation status. you can be in there for several days on an inpatient unit receiving all the same care and inpatient gets. not be able to tell one way or another you are not an inpatient, except whenever you leave your bill will be different. you will be responsible for many

more expenses. you are absolutely right, observation care is a big issue right now. theyspitals admit people should not be putting and, they cannot -- sometimes they're not paid or they are audited. so there is pressure to not admit some people. they bring them in for observation care. financially what it means is instead of being paid out of , it is paid out of medicare part b. patients are responsible for much larger portion of the bill. implications to what happens afterwards. it has been a very difficult issue for the industry and government to resolve. rules that say you have to be admitted for observation?

not know that there are rules. there is a difficult thing. you are admitted for something, technically parsing is technically what -- not what you want to be in the middle of doing while you are dealing with a heart attack. host: is there differences in care as far as the extent of i don't think: so. mainly a financial issue. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question about the 30 debris admission penalty. i have heard it applies even though the readmission is not related at all to the reason the patient was admitted in the first place. for example, perhaps a person had a serious infection the first time but the second time they were in a car wreck.

it still counts as a readmission within the 30 day time. is that true? number two, why is this only related to medicare patients who are by the definition of their age the most likely to have many conditions and more likely to be readmitted? thank you. two great questions. yes, that is true. the hospital can get penalized for a readmission not related to the original cause, with the exception is if it is a planned readmission already prescheduled. the reason for that is practical. it is very difficult to parse what caused you to come back in. the government decided this is the way we are going to do it. since everyone is being judged

against each other, we hope it evens out. the second question, can you aost: me what it was? guest: follow-up on twitter. how many are using the hospital as a basic malady? that is an issue with the emergency room. one of the goals with the is to reduce this. the question, why were there so many remissions? why are they focused on medicare? the reason is twofold. number one, that is what's medicare has power over and responsibility over. no idea how many --

many are done. there is various movements to do .imilar programs these are at the vanguard and private insurers will have implemented similar policies and will fall. the government gives them cover, as at work, so they will cut your moneyay for readmissions, because that is what the government decided they are doing, too. hopefully a trickle-down effect that will make the policies not just cover elderly patients. to health it comes care associated infections? one and 25 has had one infection. total of 722,000. more than half occurred outside the icu. can you paint that picture for ?s cap go >

guest: the infections are serious. some of them easier to address. some of the ones like cdif and mrsa are harder to deal with. there is also increasing numbers in the community. people may not even realize they are carrying them and then come into the hospital and they are in a weakened state and a variety of other reasons. 7500 is a significant number. the cdc set a target amount of reductions between 2008 and 2012 and in almost all of the cases the industry was not able to get down to that level. so it is a big frustration and everyone feels it needs to go a lot lower. talking about patient

safety at hospitals. jordan rau our guest. our guest publishes stories as well as news-related issues. talking about patient set -- safety. and next caller is from kent. small practice a here. the family practice physicians admit patients. the independently operated emergency room admit patients. seems unfair for the hospital to be penalized in the pay for performance if it is the position who is making the the patient.ismiss plus, there is a tension between medicare rules where you can day

so many days and then you are out. the risk of following that rule causes possible readmission. who is in charge? someone in the hospital itself supposed to be accepted or potential admissions? guest: good questions and points. my guess is your hospital is exempt because critical access hospitals, rural hospitals mostly, the hospitals the only game in town have been excluded from the programs we have been discussing. they probably are not being affected at all. regarding responsibility, my understanding is up position has to be -- decision has to be credentialed. so the hospital has the overall legal responsibility for what goes in, and it there is a risk

-- problem with regard to admissions, that is something they need to address. what about the statement you can only stay in the hospital so many days under medicare? quite right.s not medicare plays -- pays a flat fee. hospitals have a financial incentive to get you out. paid 20,000. so that has always been around for several decades and has a weight -- always been a concern. on the other hand, there are reasons you want to recuperate. kathy from delaware. caller: i have two questions. on the state -- are there state or federal laws to look at health care changes.

six second question, are there limits about how many hours similar to violence and truck drivers? thank you. two good questions. are there preferment? i do not think there are. that is the debate about medical malpractice, the issue there is disincentive for doctors to fess up to the problems because they may be sued over it. there are interesting experiences where doctors have been taught to do this and be more worth right. a huge debate over whether limiting the medical liability will encourage cancer among doctors. positionselieve dr. are limited on ours but residents have voted way back to the case in new york city wish initiated and.

-- which initiated it. residents cannot hold the three long workingnight around the block. it is still not quite clear if it is improved patient care or not because if you are with the patient and the clock rings and you have to get out of there, there is a danger some of the information that you know and the new dr. is not aware. an effect. obviously no one wants a doctor hallucinating from exhaustion. host: russell on the democrats line. caller: good morning. a lot has been said about the 40 veterans that passed in arizona. it came to mind that a lot of people died waiting for care at medical centers all over the united states. i wonder how much higher it is in states where the governor used to expect that expansion --

except the expansion of medicare under the affordable care act. medicaide expansion of , the program for the poor, and nother that affects, it has been totally determined yet. i would say it is still a bit early to tell whether the the states that have expanded patients whether the are getting treated better than those that have not. obviously if you have insurance, you are probably more likely to go get care. there have been studies in oregon that indicate that actual attendance at an emergency room or hospital is higher for those that have coverage. for: one of the responders the program, leah binder said this. the report sounds exciting but

not helpful to families that want to protect them selves for getting protected by household era. what is the group and how would you expand upon what she is thinking? guest: the leapfrog group is a purchaser. they have been very active trying to improve quality and transparency around quality. not nearly as transparent as it is. i am not sure what she says in the e-mail. in our story we talk to her" her. about why arebate they more likely to be penalized? her view is there is concerned there is not much to patientlaced safety. these are busy places, training

residents. doing research. if the places what have to put the prioritize it in a more .traightforward an essential part of everything they do. steve from the republican line. good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a friend locally. obviously needing medical care. now he always went to the hospital. recently they would not admit him only for observation. it is apparently not paid by medicare and cannot afford to because it is only for sick

person with heart conditions. they both are retired. so they have to take on the very six -- sick person. true the know, is it readmission policy only applies if you are admitted as inpatients and does not imply if you are under observation, because it seems the hospital tries to cut down the number of but onlyons reported for observation. is used --s true when medicare is used they only look at patients admitted.

if you just came in for observation care and left and came back, that would not count. it is also true there is a big debate about whether hospitals are pushing patience towards observation care so they did not have to worry about this. additionaleen an study by the government that is pretty murky. i am not sure anyone can draw a conclusion. there is some evidence of it may be happening. answer. no clear certainly a legitimate concern for patients and for people want to cut down on the readmission. host: is that from the initial government study? guest: they actually did their own study. the issuehave raised so much as they did their own preliminary analysis and published a paper to look at it and do not think it is a big factor. the people who track this closely like the associated

american medical colleges are very concerned. from louisiana. wondering, i just go to a charity hospital. i was wondering why i see a lot in $30,000riving up -- independent line. joy. i was just -- i know you have been over the readmission, and i can understand the point , i was just inking that i was just thinking that is

have had experiences with the where there are different types of admissions like car accidents and sometimes it is repeated because my friends have habits and personality within two months have had three different hospitalizations. [indiscernible] host: what would you like to guess to address? wondering if it is forible for a smaller congress to focus, upcoming focus to -- fliers, the ft

-- the flip term for those that are free admitted obstinately are a major cross on the system. there has been interesting initial efforts to really bird-dog them. most interestingly in new jersey where they have thrown a lot of resources at identifying patients that are being readmitted over and over again. they can be for anything. incredibly bad health. obesity and related diseases can be because of the ability to manage themselves, so the idea is if we invest on the front end and really target these people, even block by block and put a lot of resources in we can cut back on that. you get three admissions in a year is a very serious thing to some extent that is

unavoidable for people that are very sick or nearing the end but to the extent it can be dealt with. the hospital is the most expensive place to treat someone. anything you can do to treat them elsewhere is going to be efficient. caller: i am a home health nurse. i have been practicing for 15 years. the trend i have noticed is patients with congestive heart failure, diabetes, diseases that are forever, they get put in the hospital and rehab and get sent home to home health, and somewhere they never really get good teaching. the hospital gets them well enough to go to rehab. they use up their rehab days and come home to home health, and we try our best to teach them about diabetes, congestive heart failure, how to stop them from going back into the hospital, but the thing i have noticed is the hospitals are not doing what they really need to do for the

patient before they send them home. i have had rehabs discharge people. they take them fully out and the patient has not even urinated when they send them home. there is a breakdown somewhere. i know it has to do with the for-profit system. the use of all the medicaid days in the hospital and use of medicare days and the rehab facilities. then they come back out to home health. once they have used up all of their days, the hospital is like you will have to pay out of pocket.

guest: i want to point out the majority of the hospitals in the country are nonprofit. a very sizable number are for-profit. the issue the caller raised about chronic problems not being addressed is totally true. it is a triage unit basically. you are dealing with the immediate problem. things like obesity and hypertension, diabetes are things that have to be dealt with constantly along the way. there have been places that have done interesting things. we mentioned somewhere they send people out. i did a story a couple of years ago where there was a maryland hospital where you cannot have the high-salt diets. so they started putting together recipes of the popular foods from el salvador that were lower salt. so you can try simple things

like that. as we all know, the obesity problems in the country is hideous and getting worse. that connects with so many diseases that land people back in and you are just patching them back up. host: how does the obama administration knows these are a success? guest: they are tracking the readmission numbers very closely and have seen a decrease. they track -- the center for disease control and prevention tracks infection. there is a decrease in that after the penalties go into effect. that will be a major impetus. they also look at the billing records. there is a fair number of ways you can track this stuff. but it is hard to determine what is driving it, what is striving for particular institution a high rate of infections or what is driving successes. for a lot of these things they

do not have perfect ways to deal with it. host: jordan rau, kaiser health care news. thank you. >> the house debating seven bills mostly having to do with energy issues. at house will reconvene 6:30 p.m., and then members will debate installation authorizing the commodity futures trading commission. you can keep in touch with current convention using any phone, any time, with c-span radio and audio now. here congressional coverage, public affairs forms, and today's "washington journal program." you can also hear audio of the works' sunday

programs. long-distance or phone charges may apply. the white house hosted a summit today on working families. --e president showed biden use ofen emphasized the family-friendly policies. this is one hour. senior adviserme to the president and chair of the white house council on women and girls, valerie jarrett. u.s. secretary of labor, sperber thomasecretary of labor, perez. and neera tanden.

>> good morning. morning, everybody. good morning. let us hear from you. i am here to welcome you to the first ever white house summit on working families. [applause] so the president possible goals are simple. he wants make sure every hard-working american get a chance to get ahead, and he wants to make sure that our 21st-century workplace flex the needs of this 21st century families. as we know, the demographics have changed over the decades. now we know that women make up nearly half the workforce. yes, indeed.

you can clap whenever you want. singlemoms are either bread makers or the primary bread earner for the family. majority of children live in families where both parents work. what we need to do is to make sure there are work -- that our workplace changes in policy and in culture to reflect those changes. isn't that right? [applause] and so over the course of the last few months we have traveled around the country from the orlando, to a mor boston, new york, chicago, virginia. we have talked to workers and business leaders and academics and beans and stakeholders from around the country all helping us figure out the we do to change that paradigm. and reflected in this world and

online are all of you who have contributed to the agenda today and also the announcements that we will be making. thank you very much. [applause] we have listened to your stories , and everybody has stories. i want to tell you a couple of mine. i remember vividly, i will not tell you exactly how many years ago -- 28 years ago -- i was sitting around a conference 1/2 months00 a.m., 8 pregnant. upept trying to slip my seat to a chair where women without notice, and you know i could not sit there for more than about a half an hour without getting up and taking a departure. i was too embarrassed to tell anybody i had to go to the bathroom. i made up all kinds of excuses for leading the were -- for

leaving the room. i needed to do this, i need to do that. i needed to pee. i do not think anyone but he there -- anybody there was going to what i was going to. the message today is you are not alone. that is what today is all about. fast forward a few years later in a different job and my -- ater is a cobbler, toddler, and i had a client who was extremely demanding. i had to get home because i was waking up in the morning and wondering how i could get home by bedtime. i love to cook. why don't you come to my house and i will make inner? dinner.o cook -- i love to cook. i would get a chance to say could not to my water. years later i look back and i am liked myre she

cooking, but she accommodated me so i could be home at that time. the final story is one i told often, about employers who get it. i was sitting in a room working for mayor daley, and intimidating character, and i and i wasromoted, sitting across the table from the first lady's chief of staff, and susan and i both had children in second grade. we kept looking at each other, and finally the mayor realized we were not paying attention. he says, where is it that you need to go that is more important than here? in a moment of complete horror, i said to him, the halloween parade starts in 20 minutes. we are 25 minutes away. important,d this is then what are you doing here?

i am telling you from that moment he had my work. i worked twice as hard. i was determined to be worthy of that. [applause] and so as we have heard from all of you, what you have heard is for hard-working works where to make ends meet, we need to raise the minimum wage. point number one. [applause] , so workplacethis that stability is very important. paid leave is important. we are the only country who does not have paid leave. childcare is important. [applause] while we have talked about the glass ceiling, but it is that sticky floor that is the problem for so many minimum-wage workers who cannot get that break to get ahead.

these are the issues we have heard from you, and so if you are that single mom who sends your kids to school with a little bit of a fever because you do not have any childcare -- i have done that -- if you are that had who would love to stay home with your children and your company has a policy that allows you to stay home, but nobody in the culture of your company takes advantage of that policy, if you are a parent who never has been able to attend a parent-teacher conference, let alone a concert or play in your school because your employer has rigid hours, if you're a company who wants to do, the right thing by your employees but simply does not know what to do, let me tell you something. you're not alone, and this day is for all of you. [applause] so we are excited to be here. we are going to learn, have announcements to make, we are going to have a conversation with one another, but the most

important thing i want you to anember is this day is important moment, but it is a movement. we are going forward from this day forward. with that, i want you to welcome my partner in this without whom this conference would simply not have been possible, and advocate for workers around the country come each and every single day, please join me in welcoming secretary tom perez. >> good morning. all right. good morning. on cue, valerie announced this de a movement, and general takes hers in and seat. great to see you. it is an honor to be here, and i want to say thank you to valerie, tina, the partners in the white house, the partners at

the center for american progress and their team, and i want to say thank you to the women in the women's bureau who are doing great work around there. these regional summits have been remarkably productive and instructed. here is what we have learned. two sets of things from these regional summits, because we have been asking people, what is keeping you up at night? what are your biggest sources as a working family come as a working parent, as a single-parent? what are your biggest sources of fear and concern? the first thing we hear is i am working harder and falling further behind. what keeps me up at night is my second job, because i cannot afford to make ends eight. what keeps me up at night is the sense that i want to put food on the table, but i also want to be home to eat at the table with my family, because the most important family value is time

spent with your family. and i do not enjoy that luxury. i do not enjoy that luxury, because the minimum wage has decreased in value 20% from where it was 30 years ago. i do not enjoy that luxury because my wages have been flat, even though i am working 60 hours a week. i do not want to be on food stamps, i am told, with regularity, but i cannot afford not to be on food stamps. at his wife president is so focused -- that is why the president is so focused and make sure that a fair days work there's a fair days wait for making sure that nobody in this country who works a full-time job should have to live in poverty. and that is why in addition to fighting for harkin miller, the president is using his pen and phone to make sure we are

using every tool in our arsenal to help working families. for instance, the president helped to make sure 2 million home health or cars have access to minimum wage and overtime reductions. women, 50%, 90% 45% on somelor, form of public assistance. these people are doing god's work and they deserve a fair wage and overtime in effect. benefits.e we will continue to work for wage fairness because we have heard that throughout our six visits to the regional summits. we have for something else, which is we need to make sure that we have the flexibility we need to make sure that i can can take my kid to the doctor, my mother or my father to the doctor. we have such a changing universe here.

of the familyure has changed, the nature of work has changed. we are living in a modern family society, but still stuck with leave it to beaver roles. you have got to change that. people have to choose between the job that they need and the family that they love. that is a choice no one should have to make. i have heard neera say with remarkable passion that you should not have to win the boss lottery to be able to take two hours off to take your kid to the doctor. president clinton did a great thing when he passed the american family medical leave act, but the americans who are not covered by that or are nominally covered, or not covered because they said they cannot afford to take that time off, we need the next frontier

of workplace fairness. we need the next frontier of flexibility. we need to make sure we are no orger in a company of three four nations on the planet who are the only nations on the planet who do not have some form of paid leave. that is not who we are as a nation. [applause] and that is why we are fighting for this. that is why we have been working so hard, and that is why the president can use to support stateyear after year of paid leave fund because states are demonstrating you can do this. employers are demonstrating you can do this, and it is the right wing to do, and it is the smart thing to do. employers who pay minimum wage, above the minimum wage, flexible leave policy. there creating a competitive advantage for themselves and for their shareholders, and that is

why we're fighting to do this. that is what i am proud to announce today that we are investing in critical new research to understand the benefits of paid leave and that dol will be investing in new creation support the of state paid leave programs. [applause] fmla, we believe its all families deserve protections, and that is why we have proposed new rule changes just lacks week to realize the promise of windsor and to give all our lgbt brothers and same -- in legal legal same-sex marriages the same rights that everybody else has. [applause] i am a labor lawyer and civil rights lawyer, and progress does in on wheels of

inevitability. it takes everybody in this room and nation, polish and building. we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the civil rights act. it is all about persistence. this workplace the stability -- this workplace flexibility, we need to take the next front ier, and the president is committed to that. i'm confident we will build this movement, because we have rosa delauro, the chairman and chief, barack obama, and joe biden and everybody else, and we have my partner right here, the nonprofit either, the president for the center of american progress, and my friend, neera tanden. >> that was great. [applause] so i have to say what great partners. he should be able to make a lot

of change with this team. i want to say on behalf of the center for american our best and been thrilled to have the fantastic partnership over months and months leading up to the conference. the entire white house team, salary, and the department of labor which has had a fantastic team. valerie is right, we all have stories. every one in this room and the people you represent, thousands upon thousands of people, have a story. i have my own story, which is younghen i had two children, i had a son who was a year and a half and a daughter 1/2, i had a i had ansure job, and employer who saw i was struggling a little bit. she rescheduled meetings around me, made sure she changed her schedule so i could have my responsibilities.

both of the parents and as a worker. she changed the entire work culture to accommodate parents. said, i feltperez like i won the boss lottery. that is a real problem in this country. you should not have to win the boss lottery. we should all have work situations where people recognize that when we are good workers and good parents, that is for the bottom line. and that is why -- [applause] and that is so much of what today is about, in the white house has a fantastic report out today, making the case for how improving our working conditions for families is best for the bottom line. we have fantastic partners around the country. most importantly, we have women, parents here today, who are struggling with the challenges of making those terrible

choices, when we have heard these voices in the events leading up to today. we have heard from parents who had to put sick children on a bus because it was that or making their rent. we have heard parent struggling with the decision about going to work and they know they should be at home. theyts talking about how anxiously waited until 5:00 and then dashed home because they did not have child care. that is what is motivating today. today is not just about changing the conversation. it is ultimately about changing the country. we are going to do that but everyone here. [applause] everyone here staying committed, academics, fantastic advocates, people and business leaders who recognize how critical it is to have the work place rules that will help them compete in the 21st century.

i want to say a few thanks to a few of our partners who have helped support in putting this conference together. foundation,the ford bright horizons,. all these people are leaders. [applause] leaders -- all of these people are leaders who bring diverse viewpoints to make change viewpoints. today is just the beginning. we are going to have to roll up sleeves to improve the quality of lives for all of our families and ultimately for our economy. it is my great honor and privilege to introduce jill biden and vice president biden, because these are two people who work every day to improve

working families, and we are so thrilled to help start out the conference. [applause] [cheers] >> good morning, everyone. >> good morning. >> i think i need some of what was drinking. he had that energy, didn't he ? thank you, neera, for that kind introduction. everyone here knows the challenges facing working

families. recallf can visibly teaching full time, getting a master's degree, and raising three young children. even though i had a lot of support and resources, it was still a lot at once. and those kinds of challenges have only increased for today's working families. today, in 3/4 of families, all parents work, whether it is a single-parent family or both parents working. women are nearly half of our workforce, but too many women still earn less than men and often face barriers. on top of an already complicated childcare schedules and community obligations, many working families are also caregivers for aging parents. more and more companies know that they need to find ways to address those challenges so that

they can attract and retain talent. they also know that people now choose one job over another because it is in the best interests of their families. last month i was in seattle for a discussion with business leaders and employees to hear more about some of the creative ways they are addressing these and attracting and retaining top talent. what i heard there was pretty simple. employers need to take more than just the eight hours a day at an employee is sitting at his or her job. they should also think about the stresses that employers -- that employees face outside of work -- child care, aging parents, long commutes. if an employer can find creative ways to eat some of those stresses, employees -- to ease

some of those stresses, employees can be more productive at the time they are at work. what heard from employees was also clear. when they felt their workplaces valued and appreciated them, they were up eight and enthusiastic about their jobs. they were committed to their employers come and they saw that their job was not just a place where they went to work for eight hours a day, but a place where they were invested in the company's mission. one of the companies was a software company that works hard to create a flexible culture that recognizes the competing demands on its employees. jamie, a project manager, told us that heard days were filled with organizing meetings and making sure her team is getting everything done. company's nof the meeting friday policy, she was able to anenroll her twins in

a four-day kindergarten next year and was able to start friday fun days this summer. rei was another company that participated in the discussion. they allow for flexible commuting so employees can go in rush hour. miss i am sure that is something everybody here can relate to coming into washington. as an outdoors company, they want to work as culture to encourage employees to live healthy lives. what they refer to as nature nurtures. -- theynchorage and encourage employees to go hike, ando for a

engage in activities they enjoy. the purchase of it's also discussed other ways to address many of the challenges every offeringamily faces, on-site day care, providing a set amount of paid leave, and connecting workers with elder care programs. underscoring all these policies was another theme -- employers should trust employees, and trust that these solutions make workers happier and more an productive. it is important employers. the american family has changed. when we think of caregivers we think of a mother caring for her child, but that image does not reflect today's realities. particularly those in the sandwich generation, individuals who are caring for their children at the same time they

are caring for their parents. like so many americans, both my husband, joe, and i have had first-hand experience of caring for our parents in the final years of their lives. i can vividly recall helping care for joe's parents, both of whom came to live with us in the last months of their lives. but the roles of caregivers in today's society is expanding beyond children caring for parents, a role that reminds me of two brothers i met last fall, kyle and bret. army specialist who was injured in afghanistan in 2012. et'sng his recovery, br employer encouraged him to make most of the company's leave policy.

they kept his job open so that he could go and care for his brother. are why thistheirs convening is so important. everyone participating in this important discussion can contribute innovative ideas to help make life a little better for our working families. whether it is resources and employeesy for acting as caregivers or mentoring for women are offering flexible working arrangements, all of us us continue to think creatively about the workplace of the future so that we can ensure that every working american has an equal opportunity to succeed and care for our children. that is what i know our next speaker wakes up every morning thinking about. [laughter] [applause]

it is my great pleasure to introduce my husband, vice president joe biden. thank you. [cheers] thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. before jill leaves, i am sure glad she took me to work today. [laughter] tom, i think you have -- i do not know, i was just out at starbucks headquarters, and i think you got the double jolt in the morning. i do not know, man. he is that way at midnight, too, and that is why i love working with him, rocking on jobs for the future. lerie, thank you,

you have been a great friend, but you and tina have never let up on this subject. we have always -- you have always focused on what matters. it matters a great, great deal, and , neera, you do an incredibe job, but you do an incredible job with everything you touch. it is a pleasure to work with you. look, let me begin by stating the obvious. sometimes it is not always so obvious. every single circumstance is different. every one of you in this audience has a different circumstance, different opportunity, different problems. how many of you have children out there? raise your hand. cases,y one of your

there are different pressures. they are not always the same. they are not all the same. the fact that you are here, the vast majority of you, you are among the lucky ones. you're are among the ones were educated, you are among the ones who have options, mostly. you are the ones who generally make enough money that you can get some help in caring for your children or your parents. not have theo salary to do that, you are the ones that know your way around. you know the existence of programs to help your aired only -- your elderly parents or your children. your ones in the communities -- will not speak about much of them today, as i looked at the agenda -- but there is a whole lot of things that are going on and we have been working on for, years toe, for over 35

ameliorate the pressure on families. and that is everything from after-school programs. they make a gigantic difference. it is a government program. [applause] we have millions of turnkey children, going home after 3:00, 3:30, in circumstances that are not always -- i was raised in a grade school by the nuns. temptation.u know, well, you know -- [laughter] i do not care how good your keyd is, but turning on the to get in the house in a safe neighborhood, it is still a concern. so there is a whole lot of things we are not going to be talking in detail about, but the vast majority of single moms and i might add dads do not have

these opportunities. [applause] here, if you are honest, and you all are honest, i mean this sincerely, you know how difficult it is to do your job, advance in your job, and be the parent or caregiver for your parents that you want to be. youhave been raised 99% of with the notion that war first and foremost obligation is to your family, whether it is your parents in distress or your children. and it is really difficult. a lot has to do with the personal choices that we make as to how we allocate our time our careers.ve to i do not think anyone participating here makes any

moral judgment about any of the choices people make as long as they are conscious choices with opportunities, and our job, it seems to me, is to provide as many opportunities so that the choices that are always going to be the choices that have to be made all our at least more with moreat least options. but there are a lot of factors and a lot of players that can have a significant ameliorating impact on the difficult choices, women primarily, but men also have to raise their children. do you have an extended family that can help you? that is a big factor. can you afford safe and nurturing daycare? what organizations outside and including your school, outside your school, are available from your community, the ywca? we owe you. you do any credible -- spent the bulk of

my career in the judiciary committee. there is a corollary between children in trouble and having access to boys and girls club, ywca's, ymca's. you got to give children choices. [applause] children basically want to do the right thing, but the peer pressure is overwhelming. sometimes they need an escape, an excuse, when mom and dad are not present. you all know these things. but one of the factors we are talking about today is also that can be incredibly immediate incredibly ameliorating, but how understanding is your employer? how understanding? what if anything can the federal sayrnment do to help, and i

lastly, because all these other things that are out there in the community, if they're working really well, including employers, is listening others' need for minimum wage, for the whole things that you need, on forhave been working their whole careers, but there is a lot that can be done. the examples that jill k. your want to discuss all these things today, but as we used to as an the senate, it woul point of privilege, i will say -- a moderately expensive suit on. he is vice president of the united states of america. money asmakes a lot of vice president, and i do, by the way. i do. [laughter] don't hold it against me, that i do not own a single stock or

bond, that i have no savings account, but i got a great pension and a good salary. [applause] for real. sometimes we talk about struggle. i struggle, compared to the way i grew up and the way people are trying to go through things -- here is the point i want to make. i've been really, really fortunate, and jill as a committee college professor, she has seen parents trying to secure an education while raising their family, and many times being the victim of domestic violence in the process. as a military mom and to the great work she and the first lady had been doing, she knows the stress on military families facing as they struggle through foriple deployments, caring returning veterans, coping with financial and emotional pressures. these are real. these are real. and, you know, she knows what you know, that no family is a lie, no struggle at the same,

new opportunities are identical, but all families, headed by two parents or a single mom or dad, share the same goals for themselves and for their children. you cannot equalize it all, but we sure can do a lot better. they want to feel comfortable. they want to feel safe. he wanted be in a secure home with a secure neighborhood. they want to send their kids to college. they want to care for their mom and dad if they have to. and put aside just a little bit someaybe there will be left for retirement. they want to achieve these goals without having to sacrifice all of the moments that really matter. my generation, and obviously i'm a lot older than you, you can see that, but all kidding aside, my generation, as i was in college, coming out of college was itlate 1960's, it

was not quantity time, it was quality time. give me a break. [laughter] give me a break. [applause] thingis not one important my son's or daughter have said sons or. are my said to me, that the not matter, let's go fishing, and his parents, you note it be true. -- you know it to be true. the most crippled thing your thoseen ask to you are moments that you do not anticipate. moments that occur when you are reading a story at night, when you get home and have to climb in bed with them. even though they are already asleep and you pet them. [laughter] no -- one of the great memories of my daughter who is a growing worm woman, social -- grown

and a social worker, it was the snow coming home from work. you know what i am talking about. .hose things matter not all of us have the kind of flexibility that i had. not all of us had the opportunity, not all of us had that outside help. there is no substitute for being there, no amount of compensation that would replace being physically, emotionally, or mentally president when your child needs you, but we know there are going to be this times and we are not going to be there. it is just a fact of life. when i lost my wife and daughter afterar accident shortly i got elected, before i was sworn into the senate, i had a whole heck of a lot of help. i have an incredible family. my sister is the arjun of the phrase in my family, if you have to ask, it is too late, and i mean that sincerely.

if you have to ask, it is too late. i came home from the hospital and my sister had already moved into my home. husband, who gave up his job. i am serious. who has that? who has that kind of help? my mother was nearby. my brothers. they all helped me raise my children. but i was a single father for five years, and i want to tell you come up all the help i had, and i was making a good salary, i was a u.s. senator, i was making a salary a lot more than -- $42,000 a year, and was then. the average salary then was closer to $19,000. i was doing well, and i had all this help, and the overwhelming goodwill of an entire state that wrap its arms around me and my children. i used to think of myself, i have a secretary in delaware who

and whougee children is single, and her child is going to be held to the exact same standard my child is, under the law. name did she do what i was able to do, and i was finding it hard, really hard. but i got lucky. i still had to find my way. were three and four. i would leave for washington every day, i could almost hear the fear in their voices, are you going, daddy? they wanted to know that i was coming back, that everything was going to be ok. to demonstrate to them, but not really, because i needed them. i made a point to start, i thought i was only going to stay for six months, start the commute that and forth every day.

8000 roundtrips later -- not a joke -- [laughter] 8000. [applause] really and truly, by the way, i needed to do that. i needed to do that, just for me. they helped raise me as much as i helped raise them. here's the point -- and employersut can help on this, that it really matters that even if it is only like i get home at night and after five years no man serves one grade level, let alone two, and wenzhou came along and basically saved all our lives, i would take them home and i would 8:00,me late, by about and she would keep the boys up and they would have their dessert while i would have my inner. i know michelle would not like that -- [laughter] but it was healthy dessert. [laughter]

look, you do it. you go up and you lie in bed with them, whatever your tradition is. in our case we would say prayers, like my grandpa would, and they are the things i remember. when they woke up in the morning, it was no ozzie and the family kind of stuff where we sat and had breakfast together. i was shaving and they would come in and have whatever the on their mind today, we would go upstairs, i have coffee and they either breakfast, because young kids can only hold an important idea for about 12 hours. [laughter] no, no, for real. you miss it, it is gone. you miss it, it is gone. it matters to them and to you.

look, nothing is more important to me than being able to be there, but i have this overwhelming luxury. i did not have any one boss, i had a million people in delaware who were my boss, and they were pretty understanding. i sincerely mean it. i missed my first six years -- i was one of the lowest percentage of people voting. i never missed a vote that was a deciding vote, and most were procedural votes. the otherdy said, team was doing the right thing, they were attacking me on tv, which makes sense, which said would you hire a man who only shows up 87% of the time? on the advice of -- and i tell you this about how people think, over the advice of the experts

-- i looked into the camera and i said, look, it is true, i missed whatever it was, urging percent, 15% of the votes, and if you elect me again, i will do it again. no, i am serios. toill never visit a vote make a difference, but if i have a choice between a procedural vote and my child's parent-teacher meeting, i will go to the meeting. [applause] at this point, it is not about me. look at the luxury i had. how many of you would like to be able to do that? [applause] any onedifferent than of you. i am not trying to say this is, joe biden, you did -- no, i had the ability to do it. you want to do it. and i could make a choice, and i was confident the people in my state would understand, because i was confident, and the reason i tell you the stories i think that is how almost every american thinks.

they think if they only could, if they only could, they would. so, folks, look, the fact of the matter is there are too many people where it comes down to making the choice between doing that eric-teacher's meeting, going to the championship game or showing up at that debate or being there just when your child is sick, having to choose between doing that and their job. like many of but you, my family has been an incredible consumer of health care costs. my sons were critically injured. my daughter was in traction for a long time. we couldd the option, choose who could stay home. i could operate from my home, assuming there were not a critical vote. the point is, those kinds of choices, most times it comes down to not losing your job or

not, it comes to the su btle things, if i do not stay and finish the project and do not go to my daughter's parents night, they are going to think i do not really care about my job. your employer is not demanding you do it. if i do not stay -- look, i have had some really incredible people working with me over the years. he had something like 25 rhodes scholars, or marshall scholars, i had a law firm of 65 people as chairman of judiciary committee. almost everyone graduated in the top 5% of the class. really smart, smart people, ambitious people. i remember during the really difficult hearings, a hearing i on theing conducting

supreme court, a controversial hearing, judge bork, and one of the young men who had done most of the reach church in the background on judge bork, he was having difficulty at home. he was having difficulty because he was spending so little time at home for the previous six months in preparation, having difficulty in his marriage. the data hearing started, i had staff, a was chief of wonderful time, he said so and so has a problem. tell him if he comes in to work he is fired. [applause] -- [laughter] not a joke. i was not being noble. it was the right thing to do, but beyond that, he could to it from home. he could be on the phone. he could let us know. and he had to be a short -- assured that it would not affect his advancement.

that is all employers have to do sometimes, to let you know that these subtle choices -- you do not have to have some massive policy, particularly if they are the other point about trust. you know, folks, we make such a mistake, sometimes, i'm not quite sure why, but guess what, trust is usually returned. trust is usually returned. i have a policy. i just hired on three very high profile people. the first thing i sat with them when i hired them, i said, look, here's the deal. if you ever have any problem at home, no matter what it is, you don't have to tell me what it is. sometimes it's embarrassing. my child has a drug problem. i'm taking him to counseling. a vast majority of parents face that. i'm having difficulty. my wife is having -- and i are

having a problem. my father is, you don't have to give me an explanation. just say, look, i need the time. i need the time. no explanation. you have no idea, i guess you do have an idea how much not only is the right thing to do but how much loyalty that engenders. how much response you get. [applause] and by the way, those employers, corporate folks out there, you know when it's being abused. you don't need a road map. you know if that is really abused. and so it's a lot easier to trust. people don't abuse trust. if you really trust them, by and large, these are the things that i think all employers can do. now, it's true that many times problems are much bigger.

company-wide policies have to be made. decisions on flexible schedules, expanded leave policies and telecommunicating and on-the-job training and education. these are all points you will discuss in some detail today. i wish i could stay, i redo. i wish i could stay and be in this conference. the point i want to make today is that all the corporate -- >> we're going to leave this now and take you to the floor of the hours where they're voting tonight. following order. . 1044 by the yeas and nays and the senate amendment to h.r. 316 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the

gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, to suspend the rules and pass s. 1044 on which the yeas and nays are ordersed. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1044. an act to direct the secretary of the interior to install in the area of the world war ii memorial in the district of columbia a suitable plaque or inscription of the words of president roosevelt, pray with the united states on d-day, june 6, 1944. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 370, the nays are 12. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended a the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. he house will be in order. he house will be in order. he house will be in order.

for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i think we all know that the entire nation is cheering on team u.s.a. in the world cup right now. mr. van hollen: and we are happy that they will continue to do well. i would like to bring the body's attention to another hard-fought game. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. mr. van hollen: i would like to bring the body's attention to another hard-fought game which was the second annual capitolic soccer and the score was 7-6.

and we will have the plaque. mr. speaker, i have to confess both teams benefited from having professional players on each side. but the democrats had a ringer in the name of eric swalwell, who was a great player and high scorer in the game and also his goaley stopped a lot of goals. mr. speaker, i would like to thank the people who participated in the soccer caucus, co-chair congressman reichert and todd young and want to thank the captain of the democratic team, mike mcintyre and finally, i want to acknowledge george miller who is a co-chair of the caucus. i thank the u.s. soccer foundation for all their support. if we could have some order. .

mr. van hollen: i do want to thank the soccer organization for all the work they do. now it's my great pleasure to yield to the co-chair of the soccer caucus, former division i player at the naval academy, todd young. mr. young: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. young: i commend the gentleman and his team. congratulations to the democrats. the republican side fought hard. we had a late surge and we came up short by one goal. but this was for a greater cause than ourselves. promoting the sport of soccer among the youth of america and i too would add, go u.s.a. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from illinois, mr. ken zinger, to suspend the rules and concur to the senate amount h.r. 316 on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 316, an act to reinstate and transfer certain hydroelectric licenses and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain hydroelectric projects. senate amendments. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 379, the nays are three. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the senate amendment is agreed to and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 636, resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 6, to provide for expedited approval of expiration of natural gas to world trade organization countries and for what purpose does and providing

for -- for other purposes and providing for consideration of the bill, to require approval for the construction, connection, operation or maintenance of oil or natural gas pipelines or electric transmission facilities of the national boundary of the united states for the import or export of oil, natural gas or electricity to or from canada or mexico and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i yield myself as much time as i might consume. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a general leave request? the gentleman from oklahoma. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous

consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, h.r. 4413. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that in the enroll am of the bill, h.r. -- enroment -- enrollment of the bill, the clerk is able to correct such technical and confirming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the house in amending this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 629 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 4413. the chair appoints the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, to preside over the ommittee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 4413 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to re-authorize the commodities, futures, trading commission to better protect futures customers, to provide end users with market security, to make basic reforms to ensure transparency and accountability , to help farmers, ranchers and end users manage risk, to help keep consumer costs low and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, and the gentleman from minnesota, mr. peterson, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i yield myself as much time as i might consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 4413, the customer

protection and end user relief act. this is a bipartisan bill to re-authorize the commodity futures trading commission that i introduced along with my colleagues, ranking member clin peterson and claireman and ranking members of the subcommittee on general farm commodities and risk management, mike conaway and david scott. this bill is years in the making. and i want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for all of the hard work that they have put in to get us to this point. throughout this process, the committee, as well as the subcommittee on general farm commodities and risk management, held numerous hearings held from a variety of stakeholders with a wide variety of perspectives. e heard from end users, we heard testimony from every cftc commissioner and even foreign regulators. we also heard from exchanges, futures customers and numerous other market participants. ultimately we developed legislation to re-authorize and reform the cftc in a way that would not only improve operations at the agency, also

protect customers from another market failure. as we saw with m.f. global or p.f.g. best, our efforts will also increase certainty in the marketplace and provide a more balance aid approach to regulations impacting job creators. i'm proud to say this overwhelmingly bipartisan bill passed unanimously out of the agriculture committee by a voice vote. first of all, h.r. 4413 will better protect farmers and ranchers who use the futures markets to manage their risk by submitting several new and existing protections in the law. these protections are designed to ensure confidence in the marketplace following the failure of m.f. global and p.f.g. best. where cust -- for customers who thought their money was safely segregated suffered severe financial loss due to the illegal use of their funds. such protections include requiring firms to calculate and report customer account balances, electronically, to regulators. requiring firms to become

undercapitalized to immediately notify regulators and imposing strict reporting and permission requirements before the movement of a customer's funds from one account to another. as for the reforms of the commission, h.r. 4413 re-authorizes the appropriations for the agency through 2018. furthermore, the bill strives to enhance the efficientsy of the commission authorizations and ensure all commissioner's voices are heard in the regular order of a well-reasoned rulemaking process. for example, h.r. 4413 closely follows an executive order issued by president obama to improve quality of cost-benefit analysis performed by the commission prior to promulgating rules. requires the vision directors to serve at the pleasure of the entire commission rather than solely at the whim of the chairman and clarifies the judicial review process of agency rules. the commission reform title also calls for the development of much-needed strategic technology plans to enhance

market surveillance and the interpretation of collected data. importantly, it also provides much needed relief to end users, those market participants that account for only 0% of the swaps markets and had nothing to do with the 2008 financial crisis, yet represent 94% of u.s. job creators, including farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, energy firms and utilities. due to the consideration of the dodd-frank act, congress clearly intended to exempt end users from some of the most costly new regulations. however, the cftc has far roar -- narrowly interpreted the law resulting in burdensome often arbitrary requirements which have negatively impacted end users by making it more difficult and cloist to manage risks associated with their businesses. to address these concerns, h.r.

4413 provides provisions which relieve business owners from arbitrary and costly recordkeeping requirements. allows businesses to continue successful fuel hedging strategies. and prevent the physical delivery of commodities from being regulated as swaps. h.r. 4413 help prossvide america's job creators by including five carefully crafted measures to enhance market certainty which have previously passed the house of representatives ag committee and the united states house of representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support, three of which receive over 400 votes in favor in closing, customer protection and end user relief act is a wide-ranging, bipartisan, cftc re-authorization bill that provides a blueprint for the newly elected chairman and commissioners to use in making numerous improvements at the commission, better protect futures customer, and reduce

burdens on american job creators. i urge my colleagues, join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation and i reserve the balance of my time the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i believe this bill strikes the necessary balance to actually become law. the dodd-frank act tasked the cftc with implementing a variety of new regulations to better protect derivative market participants and while the commission made great progress, reports show there needs to be improvement. mr. peterson: it will cement into law several provisions that grew out of the bankruptcy and the fraud at per grin financial. it requires customer fund

balances held at depository institutions and prohibits firms from moving customer funds from one account to another without regulatory knowledge. the bill also examines two issue that was recent he gained notoriety. high frequency trading and funding for the cftc. chael lewis' book has made high frequency trading a hot top ex. many don't realize that high frequency trading in the securities market is different than high streektcy trading in futures and other markets. this is why the bill directs the cftc to thoroughly examine this practice and report back to congress their findings and once we have a better understanding of high frequency trading in the cftc, we can determine if further regulative action is necessary. the bill also directs g.a.o. to examine cftc's funding noods.

there's been a lot of debate about the funding level and how the funding should be used. i'm not sure anyone knows. having an independent third party like the g.a.o. look at this question will better inform the debate going forward. h.r. 4413 also provides some much-needed clarity to end users, as the chairman said. ag and energy producers and others who actually use the derivatives market to hedge against risks and did not cause the financial collapse. congress never intended for these end users to be regulated in the same manner as financial entities, and h.r. 4413 makes that clear. the bill also incorporates legislation already passed by the house with strong bipartisan support, including end user market exemptions, indemnification requirements and relief for municipal utilities. i know members raised concerns about two sections, the cost benefit section and another section, the cost benefit language mirrors the president's

executive order 13563 which imposed cost benefit assessment standards on all government departments. i didn't hear any complaints about the increased workload when the executive order was issued but there are some complaints about what's in this bill. but because the executive -- i guess because the executive order exempted cost benefit standards from legal challenges, that's some people's concern and some have suggested that the financial industry will use this bill's new standards to challenge cftc rule make bug frankly i think the financial industry will continue to sue the cftc regardless of whether we change the cost benefit standards or not. to the -- their nature fight regulation. we will also consider amendments to address these concerns as we look forward to this debate tonight. finally, i've heard some fears that this bill is -- gives some

foreign interests an automatic exemption from u.s. swap rules. let's be clear. the cftc has adopted these cross border provisions, the s.e.c. has not. and what it says in this bill is if they don't agree, then the current regulations stay in place. so the cftc's cross border guidance has continued to be effective and remain in place and the s.e.c., i understand, is going to finalize their cross border rules next week to be effective and what it says in this bill is if they can ever reconcile those two things, then there could be some changes in how the cross border thing is administered. but given the history of these two agencies, the chances of them coming together on this are probably slim to none. we've been waiting 14 years for joint rules regarding portfolio margining for products under

their respective jurisdictions. their record of cooperation is not good and as i said, right now, the cftc has rules, they say that if somebody is doing business in the u.s., they have to come under u.s. law and that's the way it's going to stay. mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, this bill is not perfect. but if we waited for perfection, we'd be waiting forever and we won't be able to vote for anything this bill deserves our support so we can move the process along to the senate and hopefully see a bill signed into law before the cftc re-authorization expires in september. i urge my colleagues to support 4413 and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, four minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this bill. regrettably, our nation is still faced with the weakest, slowest, nonrecovery recovery since the great depression. tens of millions of our fellow countrymen remain unemployed and underemployed. if you speak to practically any business, large or small or medium, they will tell you that the sheer weight in volume in complexity of regulations, especially federal regulation, is perhaps the primary reason that they can't expand their business. and that they can't create more jobs for those who need them. most small -- one small businessman in my district put it, the complexity of all the different rules and regulations that the government imposes is just incomprehensible confusion. 34r67, that's not the way they have -- mr. chairman, that's not the way we have job crease ated in america yet washington continues to drown our small businesses and job creators with

so many regulations and red tape. we've got to change that. the legislation before us, h.r. 4413, contains a number of measures that originated in the financial services committee and have already passed the house with bipartisan support. for example, section 395 of the bill, originally introdussed as h.r. 1256, bipartisan legislation sponsored by mr. garrett of new jersey, mr. karney of delaware. it will simplify and rationalize regulation of derivatives activity that occurs across u.s. and foreign markets today. american companies obviously use derivatives to manage risk, provide products and services to consumers at competitive prices. yet today they face the troubling prospect of having to comply with conflicting cross border requirements from two washington regulators, the cftc and the s.e.c. on the one hand, ethe securities

and exchange commission has issued a proposed rule that recognizes equivalent derivatives requirements in foreign countries and is a valid -- as valid substitute for u.s. regulation. on the other hand, the cftc staff, outside the formal rule making process, established guidance with that treats companies with well-established regulatory systems like canada and japan, as rogue nations. the cftc inappropriately decided to extend u.s. derivatives rules into foreign markets. it's no wonder the irresponsible guidance has been challenged in federal court and routinely criticized by a number of our u.s. and european regulators. this understand approved guidance will harm u.s. markets, it will harm consumers, it will harm job seekers, it will harm our economy. it will result in higher costs of everything from a john deere tractor for a farm for the east

texas who wants to buy one to a cold six pack for a work for the a mesquite factory who wants to finally, finally rest after the day's end. it will even impact the price of an airline ticket for a grandmother in garrland as she tries to afford a trip to go visit the grandkids. farmers, workers, grandmothers, indeed, all americans are already paying more for food, gas and everything. let's not let the cftc add to their burden. the bill before us today, h.r. 4413, would help solve this case of government overreach by requiring u.s. regulate dwrors issue one, one clear rule to govern cross border derivatives activities. let's bring some commonsense back, let's protect our consumers, let's get america back to work. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 4413, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman yields back. he gentleman from minnesota.

mr. peterson: i yield to the gentlelady from california,, five minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. s. waters: i -- -- ms. waters: this measure addresses an important goal for this congress, re-authorization of the cftc, our regulator whose mission it is to ensure fair rules of the road for the majority of derivative -- derivatives traded by u.s. ferms. i know representative peterson and representative scott, the ranking member of the committee and subcommittee respectively, have worked in good faith to improve this legislation and that they care deeply about making the cftc work for farmers, manufacturers, and other businesses that use futures and derivatives. i thank them for their efforts. however, i'm concerned about provisions in the bill unrelated

to re-authorization of the commission that i believe would undermine the cftc's authority, hamstring its ability to regulate, a complex and important marketplace, and mr. speaker, this legislation imposes heavy administrative burdens that prevent, delay, or weaken cftc's efforts to implement important reforms called for by the dodd-frank wall street reform act. h.r. 4413 would also make it much more difficult for the cftc and the s.e.c. to regulate derivatives, transactions -- derivatives transactions involving foreign operations of u.s. banks. it does so by establishing hard to overturn exemptions that allow their operations to substitute dodd-frank rules in favor of more lenient foreign rules in foreign markets, despite the fact that the risks may come back to the united states. these types of derivatives

transactions contributed to the massive taxpayer bailout of a.i.g. in 2008, created enormous losses to j.p. morgan in the episode in 2012 and brought down the hedge funds. this makes the job to police derivatives regulations of large u.s. banks and their foreign affiliates much more difficult. in addition, under the guise of cost-benefit analysis, the bill imposes heavy administrative hurdles and new litigation risk on the cftc, significantly impairing the commission's ability to do its job of regulating our derivatives markets. like other agencies, the cftc already considers the cost and benefit pursuant to numerous

existing laws. and unlike any other regulator, the cftc goes even further, considering the protection of market participants and the public, the affect on futures markets, price discovery, sound risk management practices and other public interest matters. even the courts have weighed in, finding that the cftc has fulfilled its duty to consider the cost and benefits. h.r. 4413 not only burdens and agency already facing limited funding with additional administrative burdens, but it also opens up new avenues for special interests to endlessly challenge the cftc in court. former cftc chairman noted that if this provision in h.r. 4413 is enacted, quote, it may well be heard -- hard to get any rule out of the building, quote-unquote. together these changes

undermine the cftc's ability to guard against some of the most complex and risky activities in our financial system. and it is all just part of a multifaceted republican effort to undercut laws and regulations that protect consumers, investors and the economy. it also comes after house republicans proposed an appropriations measure that dangerously underfunds the cftc at 22% below the president's request, a level which will lead to either agency-wide closures or employee layoffs. mr. speaker, we cannot continue to undercut and underfund wall street's top derivatives cop with the authority to ensure compliance with the law. this bill is widely opposed by the obama administration, the afl-cio, broad coalition groups like americans for financial reform, and the the consumer federation of america, as well

as derivatives end users like the petroleum marketers association of america. so i would urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and i ask unanimous consent to present to the record the opposition, including the white house opposition to this legislation. the chair: the request will have to be made in the full house. the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i wish to yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina who is a key component of this major reform bill, the gentleman, congressman hudson. two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. hudson: mr. chairman, i rise today to urge my colleagues to support h.r. 4413, which includes language from my bill, h.r. 3814, the risk management certainty act. this bill would require cftc commissioners to partake in a

formal rulemaking process before placing undue burdens on job creators. without this critical piece of legislation, a misguided cftc rule will automatically lump costly new regulations on public utilities, energy companies and other end users that played no part in the financial crisis. as a regulation -- as the regulations currently stand, if a company does more than $ billion worth of swap business per year, it must register with the cftc as a swap dealer. despite rules requiring a study to determine if the threshold is appropriately set, the cftc is set to arbitrarily lower that level to $3 billion without a vote. in today's world where the cost of living continues to rise for millions of american families, we cannot afford for our nation's job creators and energy providers to bear the brunt of yet another regulatory burden without a full and fair debate and a vote. this bill solves that problem and gives the public the ability to weigh in before a decision is made. i remain committed to protecting consumers and reducing regulatory burdens on

our job creators and i urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation. mr. chairman, with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: mr. chairman, i'm now pleased to yield six minutes to the ranking member of the relevant subcommittee, mr. scott from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for six minutes. mr. scott: thank you very much, mr. speaker. we have before us perhaps the most important piece of legislation to add fluidity to a very complex, complicated financial arena in which we're in. and the area of derivatives, swaps dealing, and dealing on the international stage as the world's number one economy. very complex, very complicated. history has shown that the united states is a leader in the world, particularly in economic affairs.

we are here today to deal with re-authorization of the cftc. at a time when we have just come out of a very serious economic downturn. now, i agree with my distinguished ranking member, we have worked very closely on this, and quite honestly there is nobody in congress that has the knowledge of financial services as our ranking member. ranking member and i have orked diligently to try to bring a serious bit of compromise to this area. she raises a good point. let me take a couple of her concerns so i can share with you how we have addressed those. first, cross-border. the claim that we are opening up and doing business with foreign governments and foreign jurisdictions that have no

regulations there and we acquire risk. here is what we are doing. and i want to make sure we're clear. i serve on the agriculture committee as the ranking member on the derivatives committee and i serve on the financial services committee. the very cross-border that we're talking about has been debated, has been argued, has been passed by this house in the form of h.r. 1256. now, here is what needs to be understood. we have minimized totally any risk of importation of damage to our economy with the exemption of the top nine. not all the foreign governments, not the foreign jurisdictions. we're exempting the top nine, largest swap dealers who deal in derivatives, foreign jurisdictions. and it will be the cftc in

conjunction jointly, through joint rules making, with the s.e.c. as chairman peterson pointed out, they're at loggerheads now. the first order of business is to get them to agree on a rule. 270 days after that, that rule would go into effect and immediately the top five of those foreign jurisdictions that have rules and regulations that are equitable to ours, which again will be determined jointly by the s.e.c. and the cftc, will go into effect. one year after that, the remaining four will go into effect. so, what we have here is a check and balance right there. they will determine that criteria. we put something else in there as well. to address ms. waters' very

legitimate concern, we said, look, once the cftc has done this, jointly with the s.e.c., then what we will do is, any one of those foreign jurisdictions who do not measure up to having the equal amount of robust regime on their regulations, they will disavow them and within 30 days they must send to the congress of the united states, specifically to the house financial services committee, the senate banking committee, the house agriculture committee and the senate agriculture committee, the reason why. stop right there. that back doorway is closed tight. there will be no seepage. if these nine foreign countries that we work with, and, mr. speaker, you must realize that historically we are the leader, we have to show the way here.

and we are not going to put in practice any way where there's any leakage that will come back to us, that will be damaging to our system. it will be in the hands of where it needs to be. the regulators. they will determine if their rules and regulations meet ours. and if they don't, they will let congress know and then they will not be allowed. the other point, mr. speaker, is we have end users. this bill isn't just about banking. this bill is about farmers, this bill is about people who make things. we are the world's leading economy. we don't do business just in the united states, we do them all around the world. and if we don't put this in, this cross-border in, we will be putting our business community on the international

stage in a very disadvantaged competitive position. so i submit to my friend, ms. waters, that we have certainly dealt with that. now, the cost-benefit analysis. first of all, i really -- ms. waters should take credit for this because she really on 1062, which was a mandate that we do, we changed that. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scott: and this is clearly an -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. mr. peterson: i'll yield the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. scott: thank you very much. we had a bill, 1062. ms. waters was absolutely right. because that bill mandated the benefit and the cost. and it was beneficial in a way to certain industries.

i voted against that bill. with ms. waters. i took ms. waters' suggestion and we went back and we said, we can't mandate this. so what did we do with this bill? we simply said, let's consider how we can protect the market. let's consider, let's assess how we can do that. and not mandate it. and again, as mr. peterson has pointed out, we modeled this directly after what president obama's executive order mandated, that you take a risk management asession before you make the decisions. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i wish to yield two minutes to an outstanding member who also has worked a key portion of this bill and his legislation reflects in it, the gentleman from georgia, austin scott, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two

minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i also rise today in support of h.r. 4413, the customer protection and end user relief act. this legislation clarifies congressional intent concerning end users under the dodd-frank law by providing a clear exemption for nonfinancial end users who qualified for the clearing exception under title 7 of the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act. across the country consumers and businesses alike are confronted with financial risk associated with their day-to-day operations. to manage these risks they use over-the-counter derivatives to provide price certainty. consumers in turn benefit from these risk management practices through greater stability in the day-to-day prices of the goods we purchase. by passing this legislation, congress provides an exception from clearing margin requirements and therefore reduces the cost for businesses and individuals who are not financial institutions. with this exemption, less than 10% of the capital involved in the derivatives market is relieved of the burdens and

regulations. this balance protects the consumer while providing a pro-growth environment for businesses and we passed very similar legislation in the 112th congress, 370-24. for this reason, i ask my colleagues to support h.r. 4413, so that we can provide businesses and individuals the tools knows manage day-to-day operational risk while providing much-needed certain toy to the american people. mr. speaker, with that i -- certainty to the american people. mr. speaker, with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: mr. chairman, i'm now pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro. the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record any document from the institute for agriculture and trade policy. the chair: the request has got to be made in the full house. ms. delauro: i rise in strong opposition to this bill.

kater to special interests, it deliberately weakens the essential regulatory and oversight functions -- functions of the commodity futures trading commission and it fails to address the cftc's biggest challenge, its flawed funding mechanism. this bill is a recipe for another disaster on wall street. like the one that caused the great recession. americans want to see more accountability from big banks and oil speculators and fewer reckless transactions, market failures and bailouts. that's what the cftc's job is. rein in gambling with risky derivatives on wall street and prevent undue speculation on oil. unfortunately this bill goes in the wrong direction. it includes provisions that will make it harder for the cftc to regulate derivatives and their transangsts between the united states and foreign banks it. goes out of its way to impose new hurdles and litigation, risks to prevent the commission from doing its job.

it hamstrings the ability to create fair derivatives in futures markets. the cftc is the only financial regulator completely dependent on the general fund to provide for their operation. every other financial regulator, s.e.c., fdic, fhfa, the list goes on, collect user fees. the flaw has been promoted by every president since reagan. it's even more important since ngress expanded cftc's responsibilities a year ago. according to acting chairman -- according to the acting chairman, and i quote, the unfortunate reality is, at current funding level the commission is unable to adequately fulfill the mission given to it by congress. i submitted an amendment that would have addressed this flaw but the house majority refused to allow it to be heard.

we should not undermine the cftc's ability to oversee risky market behaviors and enforce the law. i urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i wish to recognize a gentleman who not only has a key component of this bill but as -- but carries the lion's chair of -- share of the subcommittee's work and did the bulk of what came to be known as h.r. 4413. i recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, for four minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conaway: i want to thank chairman lucas and ranking member peterson for the bipartisan tone they've set on all the work we do in the ag committee. under their leadership, we work together, examine the issues under our jurisdiction and work together to develop legislative solutions to the problems we discover. their leadership is reflected in

the bill we have before us today. over the past two year, the general farm commodities and risk management subcommittee has heard from two commissioners, exchanges and s.r.'s, market users, on a broad cross section of issues facing the cftc. the testimony question questions contributes tord the end user relief act. it makes progress in protecting main street. it significantly reduces damage a failed f.c.m. can inflict on its customers of we also protect end users from being roped into regulation, reporting regulatory requirements that are inappropriate for the level of risk they pose on financial marks. it's clear that end users did not cause the financial crisis. they do not propose a systemic -- they do not pose a systemic risk to the financial markets and should not be treated like

financial entities. as we drafted this re-authorization, we looked at the processes of the commission. over the past five years, it's become clear that dodd-frank has fundamentally changed the role of the cftc. the law moved the commission om a conferring, principles-based regulator to a more rules-based regulator. as the commission changes so must the rules. today's legislation addresses the changes by making the cftc more responsible to each commissioner and by ensuring that each commissioner, not just the chairman, is given a greater voice on commission and staff activities. it also creates and defines the office of chief economist to provide every commissioner with objective economic data and analysis. finally, one of the most important change this is bill makes is to require a meaningful quantify case of the cost and benefit of a rule when it's first imposed this analysis done by the chief economist, will

strengthen the rule making process and result in better rule making progress. it will ensure that regulatory burdens are justified in the real world, not just in the pages of the federal register. rules that reflect the impact of a proper cost-benefit analysis will be better accepted by those who develop them. i would like to thank ranking member david scott. over the past year and a half he's examined cf -- we have examined cftc issues together and collaborated on this. i couldn't ask for a better partner on our committee. the customer protection and end user relief act is a commonsense bipartisan package. in it we protect customers and end users from overreach and make meaningful changes. i urge my colleagues to support passage of the bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota.

mr. peterson: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership in so many ways in this body. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 4413. this bill would impose unnecessary burdens on the cftc and would restrict our financial regulators' ability to regulate cross border derivatives. dodd-frank brought the previously unregulated derivatives market out of the shadows and created a robust regulatory regime of derivatives. one of the core principles of this regulatory regime was that if the united states is ultimately bearing the risk on a derivative, then you have to comply with the dodd-frank rules.

one of the reasons that the u.s. markets are so strong is because investors tissue investors have confidence in our markets and our market participants and i am concerned that this bill, morely in the cross border area, could undermine that confidence. for foreign derivatives entered into by u.s. banks, the bank can only avoid complying with dodd-frank rules if they are already complying with regulations that are at least equivalent or stronger than dodd-frank rules. this bill, unfortunately, establishes a presumption that the derytives rules in london and the e.u. are equivalent to dodd-frank, even though we know that's not true. the truth is london and the e.u. are well behind the united states in financial reform and it may take many years for them to become equivalent to our rules. this is, in my view, a very real

concern and presents an undue risk to the united states financial system and to our investors and to our taxpayers. and this is why i cannot support this bill. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to place in the record two letters, one from the americans for financial reform and one from the center for progressive reform. thank you. the chair: requests for extraneous material must be made in the full house. the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i next yield three minutes to the gentleman from california whose component of this bill is good work, i remind my colleagues, as a free standing bill passed unanimously in this body, the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. lamalfa: thank you and thank

you to mr. lucas for your help and support of this, as well as the big picture bill, h.r. 4413 a necessary and reasonable approach to the modest reforms that are needed to overall legislation. the measure includes badly needed reforms that are necessary for the cftc to run more efficiently and ensure continued growth in our agricultural sector. u.s. needs regulatory relief for end users and certainty for our markets. that's why i'm pleased to report that my legislation, h.r. 1038, as mr. chairman mentioned, which passed the house with unanimous support, is cline -- is included in this bill. the public power risk management act is a targeted reform that protects over 47 million americans from unnecessary increases in natural gas rates. they are rate payers of over 2,000 publicly owned utilities who use swaps and energy futures to manage their risks and

stabilize costs. unfortunately, the dodd-frank act whiches of intense -- which to intended to make changes the financial services industry, has also changed energy fupes. in my own district, the city of reading's municipal facility believes that hedging in the future will increase costs to their customers. this is negatively impacting ewe -- utilities in many districts across the united states. the impacts of this limitation means fewer sources and fewer options for energy which translates to higher costs for millions of american rate payers. h.r. 4413 will bring relief to commodity end users and the greater agriculture community a vital asset to our nation. let's keep this country and our ag community going and doing business by passing this commonsense piece of legislation. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota.

mr. peterson: mr. chairman, i'm going to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to clarify one point that the gentlelady from new york, i just pointed out to her, statement, i'm reading from the actual bill here, where it says that of foreign jurisdictions, as jointly determined by the condition, shall be exempt teleunited states swaps requirement in accordance with the schedule unless -- unless the commission jointly determines that the regulatory requirements of such country or administrative region of foreign jures diction is not broadly equivalent to the united states. just wanted to clarify that. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: once again, i turn to a colleague who has a major component in this overall piece of legislation, the gentleman

from illinois, mr. davis, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 4413. i'd like to thank my colleagues, especially chairman lucas, for his leadership on this very important issue, ranking member peterson for his leadership and also my subcommittee chairman, mr. conaway. i'm supportive of this bill because it provides relief to consumers, especially to our farmers and manufacturers. this bill also includes language that i developed that addresses regulations that could directly increase prices for consumers back home in illinois. and throughout this great country. in crafting rules to implement dodd-frank, the cftc imposed a realtime reporting requirement on all swaps markets. this has had a negative and unintended consequence on end users this realtime reporting requirement made et easier for market participants in certain sparsely traded marks to be

expose and when these participants are exposed it allows others to take advantage of their positions and increase their cost of doing business for future trades. these rarely traded swaps are used by only a handful of companies with excellent credit ratings to provide long-term protection against price fluctuations for commodities such as oil and jet fuel. the cftc has long recognized the danger of dislosing counterparty identities in thinly trayed markets this bipartisan commonsense language is needed to help reinforce that long-standing policy. as a member of the ag committee, i'm pleased we are re-authorizing this bill because it will provide relief to end users like farmers and manufacturers and keep costs low for anyone wants to -- wanting to travel by air and all consumers. i support this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. sarbanes: i wanted to come down and rise in opposition to this bill, i wanted to get on the record, because i predict there will come a time when there will be another financial crisis and people will look back and say, where were you when the cftc re-authorization came up? six years ago, our economy and the lives of millions of americans was thrown into a tailspin by a devastating financial crisis, spurred in large part by reckless behavior on wall street and a lack of transparency on an -- of oversight on the global financial derivatives mark system of congress took steps. we passed dodd-frank. we strengthened the rules of the road. we brought the markets out of the shadows, allowing regulators to better assess the risk. all working toward the goal of decreasing the chances of another financial crisis. the problem is, opponents of reform did not give up. over the past several years, the fight for meaningful financial

reform has migrated to the regulatory agencies overseeing implementation of dodd frank and now we return to legislative arena with h.r. 4413. which represents in my view a dangerous attack on the authority and the eff ka sthoif commodity futures trading commission. it erects an assortment of redundant hoops for regulators to jump through and undercuts the cftc oversight and dramatically reduces cftc's ability to regulate overseas derivatives. the forces opposing strong oversight of our financial markets have the luxury of existing in a political system that too often gives voices to the wealthy at the expense of the rest of america. the only way to pass this legislation is if we were suffering from collective amnesia, if we had completely forgotten what happened in 2008 and 2009 and were sleepwalking through our oversight responsibilities. we need to wake up and protect the american people from another financial crisis. i urge opposition to the bill.

i yield back. mr. lucas: might i inquire how much time is remaining. the chair: you have 11 minutes remaining. mr. lucas: i have no additional speakers and i reserve the right to close. r. peterson: in closing, i thank you for your work on this bill and members on both sides of the aisle. i also want to thank the agricultural committee staff who did our work on dodd-frank. he has been working on these issues and has been seen as one of the most knowledgeable staffer around. d just -- i want everyone to

give him a round of applause and tomorrow, he's leaving to become the chief of staff at the chief of staff at the c fmp tc. with that, i urge support of h.r. 413. mr. lucas: i yield myself what time i might consume. mr. chairman, i would like to remind all of my colleagues that once again, the house agriculture committee in the tradition, has worked to address issues that are of great impact on rural america and on our national economy. and in that tradition of bipartisanship, call it nonbipartisanship if you want, r. peterson, mr. quay, mr. scott, have crafted a

reasonable, logical set of proposals to address some real issues out there. any of you who have observed this process know that the committee is not timid in trying to do the right thing and we have a track record of however to do the right thing. some may say it may not have an impact on the decision on the other body. we have identified through all of the hearings and all the testimony and all the intut from within government and without government that there are some things that need to be done. and with this piece of legislation, we'll encourage progress on those issues. i urge all of my colleagues vote for 4413. move the process along.

help us ultimately to get to a product that will address these problems. this is a rather substantial impact on the national economy. if we don't do the things that we are proposing in the ag committee that we do, harm will be done, job creation will be impacted, every consumer and every working person will feel the effects negatively. so pass the bill. pass the bill. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule in the nature of an amendment of a substitute. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment shall be considered and each such amendment may be

offered in the order printed in the report by a member, shall shall be considered read and in the report equally divided and controlled by the pro opponent and opponent, shall be not be subject for amendment and shall not be subject to demand of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number one. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition in mr. defazio: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-476 offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: the gentleman from oregon and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair will be recognized. mr. defazio: there is a section in the bill of merit which would require four studies, whether the technology and personnel

needed to moderate the -- the role it plays in providing liquidity and i would recommend people read flashvoice and whether the authority is sufficient to high efficiency. we should have the answers. but i have one additional request, which would be to examine about high frequency trading increases market volatility. they found there were 27,000 contracts traded during a 14 hive second period but they came to no conclusion regarding how or what role they may have played in flashcrash and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i would

claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: i would recognize myself for the time i might consume. although it's my understanding that the substance of the gentleman from oregon's amendment would be broadly addressed within the existing language of section 107, i see no problem that his concerns are addressed more specifically. therefore, i would suggest to my colleague from oregon, let's accept your amendment. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in 114-476. rt for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition.

the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas, misjackson lee and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman very much and i thank the chairman and the ranking member of the committee and knowing how hard they have worked. and i hope that this discussion today will emphasize a commitment to transparency and commitment to consumers and a commitment to making the legislation responsive to consumers. so i thank you for the opportunity. this legislation is to re-authorize and improve the operations of the commission as well as address concerns from customers from the m.f. global

financial. it is a product of a process that included hearings and end users, future customers. the jackson lee amendment only seeks to improve this bill, if passed it will require study to provide very basic information about firms regulated by the commodity futures trading commission. itry quires them to do a report to examine the number of entities regulated by them and under management. it must be quick to acknowledge that the failures from other firms speaks loudly to requiring more information for the consumer. this amendment would provide more insight as to how the industry works. my amendment gives two years for the industry to complete the

first study. that is a very long time. and again, the report provides more information for the very consumers that we are trying to protect. that is more than enough time for the staff to comply with the amendment. and in that span of two years, a lot of things could change, but it is to provide transparency for the members. it is critical that investors know what is going on, particularly small investors who are not privy to the information that larger entities are made aware. my amendment, basic information, via an agency study, much of which the commission has and i'm seeking to have it. let me just share one aspect of this and then conclude, more importantly in my conclusion, many of the residents have invested in homes, stocks and education because someone in

wall street pushed the wrong button generating a contra trade. this is not what americans want to see. transparency is viable. let me show you a letter that was sent from the trustee of ms global, to some poor person who after five years got their few dollars after this major bankruptcy. enclosed with this mailing is a check from the trustee, in payment of your allowed customer claim, they got it five years later. this was established in the bankruptcy court. the amount related to your trading and domestic exchanges would have bending distributed to your number. please cash this check as soon as possible. you better hurry up and get the

$40 that came to ensure a prompt processing. i believe that this is an important aspect of helping to have more information for our consumers. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. in a time of economic uncertainty, tight fiscal budgets, i advise against the use of valuable commission time and resources on a study with some ambiguous terms and no clear practical use. studies on cludes agency funding and i respectfully urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. and with that, i reserve.

the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman and i thank the gentleman for his comments. the veterans committee is meeting to find out more information on the knowledge of so many veterans who may have died on a secret list. i would imagine they would have wanted some years back to have investigated studies and gotten more information. i respectfully disagree. i do not think this is a waste of the energy of this agency and enough hink we have information. and if i can stand up here and show a letter that is the result of a bankruptcy because consumers didn't have all the information they needed and all we are asking is over a two-year period is give us the number of entities and the assets under

the management, i don't believe that is too much. investigating precise issues is not giving the consumer a portfolio of knowledge. i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the the gentlewoman from texas, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. jackson lee: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in 446. report 113- ms. delbene: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 3 113-446.n house report

the chair: the gentleman from washington and a member opposed each will control five minutes. ms. delbene: i would like to rankingairman lucas and member scott for their work on this very important bill and i would like to thank others for co-upon soarsing this amendment. and it is straightforward and will provide needed clarity. a court shall affirm the cftc's cost of a rule. this will have impact of limiting individuals and firms to challenge them in court in amendment to stop a rule from being implemented based on the cost benefit analysis. it also says if no abuse occurs, the court must uphold the cftc

assessment. we should not be inhibiting the cftc's process and adding to their workload, especially when they're already struggling with insufficient resource fers task at hand. the cftc is already required to consider the costs and benefits of its actions and regulations, it just does not provide a formal seasonal oice they have costs and benefits. if we're going to mandate that they provide a frmal cost benefit analysis, which can be time consuming, we should trust their analysis and not let the rules get caught up in legislation. why expend all the time and energy of an analysis if the end result can be derailed by a lawsuit filed at the 11th hour. i firmly believe this amendment improve this is bill to re-authorize a critical federal regulator and i urge my

colleagues to support this amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: this amendment sponsored by the gentlelady from washington and her co-sponsors builds on the enhancements of the cost benefit analysis required in this bill by preserving the court's ability to pursue -- to review the rules. i congratulate the sponsors of the committee and once again the house ag committee proves that working in a bipartisan manner is possible and productive. this is the kind of cooperation our friends back home would want to see and demand and with that, i urge its adoption and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from washington. ms. delbene: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd also like to recognize the subcommittee chair -- ranking member, mr. scott and yield to him as much time as he may consume.

the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you very much, ms. delbene. ms. delbene, mr. gibson and mr. vargas are all hardworking members, democrats and bun republicans on the ag committee. this shows you how wonderful the legislative process can be. i earncy tissue i certainly want to recognize our ranking member who brought this concern in her opening remarks. and this helps to tighten and i think make a better bill because what it will do is that it will address the concerns that ms. waters raised and that would be that improved cost benefits provision would lead to unnecessary lit gation. what -- litigation. what ms. delbene and mr. vargas and mr. gibson have done, it narrows the potential avenues for lit gigs on the cftc's cost benefit analysis but still

allows the consideration of the points of analysis to take place. i want to commend ms. delbene and mr. gibson and mr. vargas for a very good amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from washington yields back. all time having been yielded back, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number four printed in house report 113-476. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four offered by ms. waters of california. the chair: the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california.

ms. waters: i urge support for this amendment to ensure that the commodities futures trading commission cab adequately regulate our financial markets and address some of the practices that so seriously arm harmed our economy just a few years ago. this amendment modestly improves the onerous clause benefit considerations included in this bill, a provision that would open the commission up to expensive legal challenges. it does so by adding in language from the president's executive order on cost benefit analysis that pribts -- prohibits judicial review. the bill's sponsors cites this order as a model of good analysis and incorporate many provisions of that order in this legislation. however, the measure before us today inconsistently omits the order's prohibition on jew dishall review -- on judicial

review, thereby subjecting the cost-benefit considerations to increased litigation risk, risk that no other agency complying with the executive order has faced. my amendment would correct this oversight and prevent special interest groups from using the cost benefit provision as a club to delay, weaken, or kill financial reform. my colleagues, representative dell bemi, representative gibson, representative vargas, share my concerns and have proposed an amendment that would establish a highn't standard of judicial review. while i support this amendment, it does not go far enough in my view to fix the problem. i believe that judicial review with regard to the heightened cost benefit provisions in the underlying bill should be prohibited entirely. but make no mistake. even if the amendment offered previously by my leagues on judicial review or for that matter my amendment is adopted,

the bill would still impose heavy administrative hurdles on the cftc. the commission is already required to consider the costs and benefits when prom all gating rules and issuing orders pursuant to the paperwork reduction act. the congressional review act, and the regulatory flexibility act, as other agencies do. unlike any other financial regulator, the cftc is also already bound by the commodity exchange act to consider the impact of their rules on the full range of market stake holders and of course weighed in as well finding that the cftc has fulfilled its duty to consider the cost and benefits as in the rule related to commodity pool operators. and the cftc will still have to expand resources to comply with this provision that the republicans are unwilling to

provide. instead, the cftc will have to take funds from examinations and enforcements to pay for redundant economic analysis. mr. chairman, this is a commonsense amendment that will simply prevent our nation's top derivatives cop from spending excessive time and resources fighting off superfluous legal challenges and would make the underlying bill consistent with the president's executive order. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i will eserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i claim time np on -- in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized mr. conway: i think it's dangerous to require them to follow rules and regulations that are not -- that have not

been fully considered. only after a regulator considers the cost of a rule and compares it to the benefits can a rule be analyzed -- analyzed. r so often, the cftc ignores the analysis. the threat of litigation forces regulators to make sure they properly consider costs and attest that the regulation achieves the goals in the law set out by congress. striking the ability in court to review the cost benefit analysis the cftc regulation would change the bipartisan compromise offered by ms. delbene. it seems odd that you would support the delbene amendment and then categorically oppose judicial review. i think her amendment allowing the courts to determine if a

cost benefit analysis promulgated -- of a cftc promulgated rule or regulation is a measured approach that will lead to sound and effective policy. we've gotten an indication from the inspector general that throughout the entire dodd frank regulatory process, which cftc put in place some 60 rules that generally speaking, according to i.g., generally speaking it appears the cftc employees did not consider quantifying costs as indicated. and took a cavalier approach to the process. we think that based on the testimony we've heard from many of they have regulators that the cftc did a poor job of the front end of estimating the cost of what all of these rules that they were putting in place with respect to dodd frank would be and therefore did not consider properly and the benefits were far less than the costs imposed. so with that, i respectfully urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman

reserves. the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: how much time do i have left? the chair: you have 1 1/2 minutes. ms. waters: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to make clear, my opposition to anything other than preventing judicial review on cost benefit analysis and again, i'm very appreciative to my colleagues who have -- who also share my concerns and again, have proposed an amendment that would establish a heightened standard of judicial review and i support that amendment. but i do not want anyone to be confused that i believe that that amendment would solve the problem. i still think that if that amendment is adopted, the bill would still impose heavy administrative hurdles on the cftc. this is not about simply re-authorizing -- re-authorization at any cost with anything in the bill. this is about having a cftc that

really work, that is not burdened with the kind of cost benefit analysis that we have seen burdening other of our agencies as they have tried to do their job, including the s.e.c. i would ask my friends who are listening to differentiate between that amendment of my colleagues who are addressing this concern in their way, and my amendment that would prevent judicial review altogether. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. conway: i too agree with the -- mr. conaway: i too agree with the gentlelady, we all want an effect i have cftc. view ought to be part of its functioning, given what took place in the financial collapse. we don't believe the rules were properly used and did not generate the benefits that the

im% of a properly vetted conflict -- cost benefit analysis would have. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. ms. waters: i can for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number five printed in house report 103-476. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin seek recognition? ms. moore: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 113-476, offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wisconsin.

ms. moore: my amendment is really rather straightforward. it preserves the ability to have the consumer financial -- the commodities futures trade commission to regulate derivatives markets will maintaining the reasonable cost benefit provisions that are already in the law. just to give you a little history, mr. speaker, as we know, unregulated derivatives transactions in 2008 precipitated the 2008 financial crisis from which this country is still struggling to recover. section 238 is not something, as i have heard earlier in this debate, that will just make it -- make it better for manufacturers or end users. it's a trojan horse designed to

deregulate markets by providing wall street ways to overturn laws and regulations, not on sb stance and not even on congressional attempt but by challenging economic studies in court. regulatory gaps in derivatives regulations will put taxpayers back on the hook for wall street excesses. mr. speaker, i would like to enter into the record an analysis that i did, it was posted in the "huffington post" g.o.p. cost benefit bill benefits wall street, costs americans. the chair: i'm story, that must be entered during general debate. of the full house. ms. moore: thank you mr. speaker. regular willer to gaffes -- gaps will put -- regulatory gaps will the responsibility on

taxpayers. it offers alternatives to deregulation. alternatives? what are we talking about here. as a member of congress, all of us accountable to voters, we should not be comfortable passing laws only to have regulators not implement them because wall street hedge funds or swap dealers object to a cost study issued by the regulations. the wolves of wall street should not get a veto over regulation. because they may produce a self-serving regulation may burden him in some way. how much time do i have? the chair: the gentlelady has 2 1/2 minutes. ms. moore: i'd like to reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? . mr. conaway: this would bring

the discipline necessary for the agency to assess the cost and benefits. the gentlelady's remarks would be much more in line if she were asked to strike the section. she is asking for a sense of congress. why do we need a sense of congress? and i would understand her arguments a lot better if she asked for a strike. i'm going to oppose the gentlelady's amendment. her amendment is a stalking horse because it would replace the bipartisan, well-crafted consideration for the analysis for the cftc with a sense of congress. and that in my view would negate the value of having the agency actually have they go through as they propose a rule to determine what would be the cost. we are always going to have regulations. but they ought to make sense and

ught to -- when they expire, when the usefulness goes away, they should go away as well. taking into consideration the cost and benefits is an appropriate step. it doesn't mean that the cost benefit analysis will control, but does allow for a better sense that those who are being regulated have their voices here heard and if they have done a proper cost bep fit analysis, those regulated, will have a chance to comply with the new rules and perhaps even less litigation if the agency would use a proper cost benefit analysis and reflect the impact of that analysis in the rules. with that, i will oppose the amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from wisconsin. ms. moore: those bipartisan groups that do not learn from

history are doomed to repeat it and we on a bipartisan basis deregulated -- didn't regulate the derivatives and we will unfortunately our lesson. i yield to the ranking member, ms. waters, whatever time she might consume. choirment the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. water waters thank you for yielding additional time to me to talk about cost benefit analysis. i think the gentlelady has made a real case for what we are dealing with here. first of all, we know and i guess we all agree that prior to the meltdown that we had that caused the recession in this country, that we did not have the kind of oversight that we needed on derivatives. and we worked very hard to bring

about transparency. we worked very hard to get a handle on the role that derivatives had played in this meltdown that we had, that caused us almost to go into a depression. and here we are trying to implement the reforms, trying very hard to protect the american people and those end users that are have been talked about so much today. and cost benefit analysis is just another way that have been injected into this whole attempt to regulate that would place unreasonable burdens on the cftc and basically prohibit them from doing their job. the gentlelady, in offering this amendment, has made it very clear and she's added additional support to what we have been talking about today relative to cost benefit analysis. so i hope that not only the information that we are presented, but the information

she has presented is enough to have people understand what we need to do in order to protect the cftc's ability to do its job and carry out its mission. and i would yield back to the gentlelady. the chair: the gentlewoman from drk gentlewoman yields back. reserve? ms. moore: how much time do i have? the chair: 15 seconds. ms. moore: i will -- he has a right to close, so i'll take it. you know, section 203, takes us back to the day before a.i.g. melted down and we are moving forward. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: thrute the debate on this bill, in committee and subcommittee, we have made the point over and over this is a prospective change to the rules

of the commission. has nothing to do with the rules already in place. the 60 some-odd rules are unaffected by this change to the cftc rules cost benefit analysis. one side of the house decided it. and the cftc has to go through this, but title 7 and dodd frank and those rules are in place and so this is not going backwards and not looking backwards but a prospective change how they should operate going forward. they should have been operating under this but they weren't. there weren't enough teeth in them so the chairman took advantage of that. this would close that loophole and future chairman will have go through a cost benefit analysis program. and with that, i urge my

colleagues to oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. moore: i would like a roll call please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wisconsin will be postponed. now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in ouse report 113-476. ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report number 113-476. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, again to the chairman and ranking member, i thank them and

certainly the ranking member of the financial services committee for her leadership. my amendment is simple. it would preserve existing law with a legal challenge is reviewed by the district court and following an opinion by a district court judge and a appeal. let me refer my colleagues to the joint report by the agricultural committee where specifically it says that the general review provisions of the a.t.a. requiring parties to file a claim before u.s. district court and goes on to give those particular details so existing law. and then it goes on to indicate that follow the the review , the ions of the a.t.a. general counsel indicated that

he would not object to a change. i would make the argument that it is not -- the general counsel but the individual consumer who should have the opportunity in a district court either in their district or in the district of columbia to be able to make a record and ensure that all of the facts of the issue dealing with the rule is fully vetted. and that will happen if you have the opportunity to go first to the district court. and so preserving existing law where a legal challenge to a cftc regulation is reviewed by a district court, gives the opportunity for a full briefing, a robust record that can be developed along the legal issues and fact issues and also it reduces the ease of the industry to or the ability of the industry to undermine important

dodd-frank derivatives. i indicated that it's the little guys that are in the commodities and dealing with that, they need the opportunity to have, in essence, the double-check on rules that may impact nare business. with respect to dodd-frank, let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. we remember the dark days of 2008. the financial markets needed to be bailed out and i do not want to see that repeated. the amendment is simple. it goes back to existing law. i cannot imagine that general counsel would oppose existing law. the statement says he didn't mind. but again, didn't mind closing down opportunities for consumers on something they may be opposing. i would ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. and i reserve my time.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. i yield myself what time i may consume. in crafting the consumer protection and end user relief act, i worked closely to with the ranking member to ensure that the rules would be on the same footing as the security laws from the s.e.c., securities and exchange commission. the current disparity between security laws and the commodity where they problems were to seek authority of the rules. i urge my colleagues to vote against what i fear is a regressive amendment and i reserve. he chair: the gentlewoman from texas.

you have two minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: let me appreciate the comments. i'm well aware that the s.e.c. has utilized the court of appeals. there is a smaller investor that tends to engage in the commodities and therefore transparency and the opportunity to create a record is far more important in the commodities. i would make the point that my amendment is supported by the commodity coalition asking for us to continue with existing law and they include american bakers association, california black amplers and colorado petroleum marketters. and florida marketters' association, the national association of national oil and national family farm association, national grange, action oil group, the north

dakota petroleum marketters', oil heat council of new hampshire. public citizen, ranchers, i were wyoming petroleum ranchers association, to name a few who asked for a simple request is that when there is a need to challenge the rules to allow a full record to be made at the district court level, the commodities is not in the same vein as the s.e.c. and i would argue there is need for greater highlight and information and that the jackson lee amendment should be accepted for that kind of transparency and treating our small investors fairly and giving them the opportunity to fully pursue their position when it comes to a particular rule. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady's time

has expired. ms. jackson lee: i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. mr. lucas: i yield myself whatever time i consume. i ask my colleagues to vote against a regressive amendment and with that, i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. jackson lee: i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be peastponed. . it is now in order to consider amendment number six. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. fincher: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: pe clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number seven offered by mr. fincher of tennessee.

the chair: the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher, an a -- and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. fincher: my amendment to h.r. 4413 simply requires the comptroller general of the united states to conduct a study of the efficiencies in leasing and rental costs at the commodities futures trading commission. the study would determine if the cftc is violate anything laws, including the anti-deficiency act, by entering into these leases, particularly those with more than five-year terms and if so, how it can avoid violating federal law in the future. in a recent report from the inspector general of the commodity future trading commission, we found the cftc is currently using just one third of its kansas city regional office. the cftc is paying approximately $44,000 per month, meaning that over the 10-year life of the lease, the cftc will pay $5.3 million with $3.6 million

dedicated to vacant office space. however in this letter from the inspector general, we found that this is not limited to just the kansas city office. in fact, over the life of the cftc's current leases, more than $200 million will be spent with approximately $64 million ked dedicated to vacant office spaces. this is simply outrageous and the latest example of government waste of taxpayer money. in fact, the cftc management in its may 14 response to the inspector general agreed there is excess vacant space. however the cftc argued the lease of so many vacant offices was a justifiable expense because future funding increases are within the rem of possibility. mr. speaker, congress has appropriated approximately 66% of the cftc's budget request. let's just look over the last few years. in fiscal year 2012, fiscal year

2013, the cftc requested $308 million and received $205 million. in fiscal year 2014, the cftc requested $315 million and received $215 million. i agree with the inspector general, the rem of possibility is not the standard taxpayers expect when the government deals wither that money. mr. speaker, is it really too much to ask agencies that are spending millions on rent to actually need and use this space? the inspector general hit the nail on the head when he stated, the cftc and the public are better served by the risk of a temporary shortage of space than a 100% certainty of spending substantial taxpayer dollars on the lease of vacant spaces. it is just common sense that if you can't afford it, you don't buy it. for these reasons, i, my colleagues to vote for this amendment and ensure the cftc

stops relying on the rem of possibility as justification for wasting taxpayer dollars on empty office spaces. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. he gentleman from minnesota. mr. peterson: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. peterson: in opposition, i want to say, i have no opposition to this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee. mr. fincher: i urge support for this amendment and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. -- is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number printed in house report 113-476. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. garrett: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 113-476,

offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 629, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: i rise to offer an amendment to h.r. 4413, the customer protection and end user relief act. avoid duplicate regulatory requirements faced by investors and many -- investors. it pays a critical role in the retirement landscape. millions of retirees, pensioners and others seek access to r.s.c.'s to invest their hard-earned money in savings to invest for retirement, college 2003 igs or a first home. currently all rsc's are

registereded with and have to abide by f.t.c. back in 2012, the commodities future trading commission, cftc, acting on their own initiative and without any direction from congress, significantly lowered a long-standing exclusion from commodity pool operators or otherwise regulated exercises but only for r.s.c.'s which are comprehensively regulated by s.e.c. and don't traditionally resemble commodity pools. because they're all registered with and regulated by the s.e.c., the cftc rules change needlessly forces fund companies that manage literally thousands of funds representing millions of investors are forced to pay reg stly and duplicative

strailings requirements. ep without registration, the cftc has authority over all contracts. this amendment wouldn't change the way all commodity transactions are subject to the transaction requirements of regulations such as report, clearing, trading and margins. this amendment simply eliminates the duplicative regulatory and registration costs faced by these funds. also, by more appropriately tai roring -- tailoring the regulatory reach this amendment adds the added benefit of ensuring that the cftc has more funds and resources available to do what? to implement dodd-frank and enforce the new swap regulatory regimes. this will help the agency provide even better for their current workload and reduce them for significant increase in the budget during challenging fiscal times. at a time when millions of american households are

approaching retirement and their investment returns are significantly reduced buzz of the federal reserve's low interest rate policies, it is very important that the government public policy minimize the regulatory costs of investment for the retirees, for pensioners and for our savers. we must strike the right balance between ensuring investors have the ability to earn adequate return osen their investments with appropriate regulatory oversights of our finance rblet markets. so with that, please help restore this balanced and -- restore this balance and protect investors by voting yes for the garrett amendment to h.r. 4413. i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i rise to claim time in on session. the chair: the gentleman is recognized in opposition. mr. peterson: so, mr. chairman, as one great american said, now we're going to hear the rest of the story. this is a situation where the

industry lost in court and now they're coming to congress to try to accomplish what they couldn't do through the court system. i rise in opposition. back from president reagan's time to president clinton, the cftc had, on its own accord, exempted registered investment companies from having to register as commodity pool operators with the cftc, provided they need two tissue meet two conditions. one with commodity futures occurring was below a set threshold and two, that they did not market to retail customers as a commodity pool or investment vehicle for commodfi futures or -- futures or options. during the first term of the bush administration, the cftc eliminated the threshold and retail marketing restriction. these steps aloud investment companies access to markets without any cftc oversight and

were opposed by the national futures association, the frontline regulator for the cftc. so in 2010, the national futures association petitioned the cftc to reconsider the broad exemption for registration given to i.r. -- to r.i.c.'s. from that request, and following passage of the dodd-frank act, the cftc reconsidered its exemption and reinstituted the thresholds for creating active -- for trading activity and marketing activity that would trigger review by the cftc. not surprisingly, the investment company institute which represents these funds and the chamber of commerce, sued the cftc. the federal district court ruled in favor of the cftc and the court ruled for the agency in summary judgment. the funds appeal the u.s. court of appeals upheld the ruling in favor of the cftc. after the cftc won its case, the

commission set up a harr onoization routine versus cftc rules. if the cftc and the s.e.c. rules conflict, the r.i.c. can defer to the s.e.c. rules. despite that accommodation by the commissioner, having lost both the regulation and the litigation, the financial community is here now with this legislation. the garrett amendment attempts to accomplish what the financial industry couldn't achieve in the courts. the amendment would pemple innocently remove from cftc jurisdiction over r.i.c.'s registered with the s.e.c. regardless of how big they play in the futures or swaps market and regardless of their reach in retail customers. the amendment supporters will say that this is only -- that this only applies to investments in futures and swaps and financial commodities, as opposed to agriculture or energy

commodity but i would remind members that it was financial swaps that contributed to the financial collapse in 2008. it wasn't energy and agriculture swaps. and the s.e.c. failed in its oversight in 2008. so i don't want to have to rely on them to keep an eye on financial instruments and i don't want to have a repeat of the bernie madoff scandal this time in the future. so the cftc has gone out of its way to acome tate this industry and their concerns over duplicative oversight, have given -- but given their past bad behavior, i don't think we should rely on one agency to keep an eye on these guys. i urge despeet of the -- defeat of the amendment and yield back my time. >> would the gentleman yields on that point? mr. peterson: i would be happy to yield. mr. gir rhett: your last

sentence was -- mr. garrett: your last sentence was you don't want to rely on one entity. but we do nothing in this amendment to take away from the cftc their enforcement authority. they retain that. all that is taken -- all that is changed is the registration requirement. cftc and the s.e.c. retain their neutral, harmonious, if you will, enforcement authorities on all the contracts respective to these provisions. we just say why duplication the effort as far as registration efforts. i wanted to clarify that. mr. peterson: i think there's more to it than that. they wouldn't go to all this to try to get the cftc to do what they wanted and then go through the courts and then come here with legislation if this was just a minor registration issue. mr. garrett: actually, yes they

would. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota controls the time and his time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized, you still have a minute and a half. mr. garrett: so at this point, i would yield, i'd like to hear from the chairman but i would yield to the gentleman from georgia for a minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> this is a very interesting debate. mr. scott: but i think the simple point here, mr. speaker, is number one, this is just -- this just deals with the registration. prior to 2012, the s.e.c. handled all the r.i.c. now we have caught up in the middle of all of this millions nd millions of pensioners, retirees, people who are getting into the golden years of their lives. my hope is that we can pass this