ly high, that an iranian regime with nuclear weapons would use those weapons and the best case scenario is it sets off a nuclear arms race throughout the middle east as arab countries rush to acquire developed to helen's iran and that affects the entire world. i don't think we should do with the obama administration suggest their objective is reached his to produce -- which is to produce political harmony and cause those who battled to lay down their arms and sing by a -- sing kumbaya but i do think we need results. is it realistic to abolish the irs? it may not be with president obama in the white house. it is hard to imagine a scenario where he would sign legislation to do that.

one of the great things about the political process, there are things today that may not be realistic that tomorrow would become realistic. i would note, if we got in the michael j fox the lori and and and set of october 2014, we went back to october 1980, when ronald reagan was running for president -- if i told you then that if reagan gets elected, he will pass fundamental tax reform which -- with the democrats and tip o'neill, he will cut the top marginal rates from 77% to 28%. the economy will grow from what had been four years of stagnation averaging less than 1% growth to my 19 84 and the economy will grow 7.24% per year booming growth lifting

millions out of poverty. if i would've said that been the answer would be that is not realistic at all. if i would've said in october 1980, when the learned observers were saying the soviet union is unstoppable, when the president was saying we need to accept malaise, if i would've told you that president reagan would rebuild the military and put so much pressure on the soviet union that it would collapse and the berlin wall would be torn to the ground -- in october 1980 the answer would be, that is not realistic at all, how can you say such a thing. i agree, abolishing the irs is major reform but i don't agree that it is anywhere near as difficult as what we were able to accomplish in the 1980's and if the american people say enough is enough, we can fund our federal government but we

don't have to empower bureaucrats that the impossible becomes possible. >> time for one more question. sorry, right here. >> with the current administration releasing u.s. enemies from gitmo and trying to with general petraeus in jail, is it too provocative to ask which side we are on? >> i would frame it differently this administration has a very difficult time, differentiating good guys from that guys. one of the striking things is you travel the world. our friends and allies quite consistently will pull you aside

, defense ministers, heads of state and foreign ministers and say, where is america? what has happened? we saw this just yesterday in paris. quite literally, where is america? ? for six years, we have abandoned our friends and allies. at the same time -- that has been true across the globe whether it is france, whether it is canada our largest trading partner with this administration has for example locked the keystone pipeline for years despite the thousands of jobs that would generate both in canada and the united states, whether it is the united kingdom exemplified by the opening weeks of united states administration sending churchill's bust back.

or whether the shameful treatment of the nation of israel. the obama administration has been the most antagonistic ministration to the nation of israel in history. consistently, this administration has refused to stand by our friends and allies. at the same time when it comes to our enemies and bad guys whether it is violence like putin, who you will recall, the administration began by canceling the antiballistic missile batteries to appease, we all recall the president's words

, tell to and i will have more flexibility after the election. how has that worked out? whether it is the treatment of iran, we are allowing billions of dollars to flow into iran while they continue to build centrifuges and enrich uranium. or whether it is the nation of cuba where the president suddenly embraced the castro communist regime which has murdered and tortured its citizens, doing so in a way that caused the castro's to celebrate their embrace from the president . or whether it is when it comes to radical islamic terrorism former secretary of state hillary clinton saying we just need a little bit more empathy. no, we don't need empathy for

radical islamic terrorists. we need to resolve to stop them. the consistent pattern is this administration is unable or unwilling to distinguish between friend and foe. our friends do not trust us. our enemies do not fear us. that is a dangerous state of affairs or the united states and a dangerous state of affairs for the world and it needs to change. thank you. >> senator, thank you. [applause] >> the heritage foundation is holding its policy summit this

week with republican members of the house and senate. we will have live coverage starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> dr. anthony felt she, our guest -- anthony fauci is on the frontline battling against infectious diseases. >> we have drugs right now that it people who are hiv infected and i could show you the dark comedy, in the early 80's if someone came into my clinic with aids, their median survival would be six months which means half of them would be get in eight months. now if i go back to rounds on friday and someone comes into a clinic who is 20 years old and relatively recently infected and i put them on the combination of three drugs, a cocktail of

antiretroviral therapy, i can look them and the i and say we could do mathematical modeling to say if you take your medicine regularly you could live an additional 55 years. to go from knowing that 50% will die in eight months and knowing if you take your medicine you can live essentially a normal lifespan, just a few years less, that is a huge advance. >> director of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases, dr. anthony fauci on c-span's "q&a." >> mitch mcconnell and richard durbin spoke on the senate floor about last week hospitality in paris. cue. before proceeding to my remarks i would like to say a word about what's been happening in paris. we've seen some remarkable

displace of support -- displays of support for the french people. we've seen defiant recommitments to the ideals of free expression and the french people should know that the u.s. senate stands in solidarity with them, as they work to recover from such awful terrorist atafntle attacks. they should also be assured that we are prepared to cooperate i the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president later today members of the senate family will have an opportunity to -- two opportunities to express our solidarity with the people of france in their hour of grief in a short while the senate will consider a resolution condemning the series of terrorist attacks that have shaken france, starting with the attack on the offices of the satirical newspaper sahara lee hebdo and

leading with an tac on a grocery market in pairs. our condolences to the families and victims of the people of france. it also expresses our deep commitment to the universal right of freedom of expression, a freedom for which the writers and artists of sahara lee hebdo gave their lives. later this afternoon senators and their staffs will have an opportunity to sign a condolence book. the book will be outside the senate foreign relations committee room on the first floor of the capitol. in memory of the victims we'll welcome the french ambassador to the united states, ambassador gerrard areaux. if the terrorists who committed the attack meant to frighten freedom-loving people in frons and around the world they have failed utterly. yesterday 4 million people

marched in demonstrations in cities across the nation of france. 1.5 million people marched in paris alone. authorities said it was the largest gathering in paris since the end of world war ii and the largest demonstration in the history of the nation of frangs. -- of france. they marched to declare their solidarity with the victims of the sahara lee hebdo massacre and the supermarket massacres and to democrat demonstrate their unity. the marchers included many religious faiths and nonbelievers. the president of france led the marchings joined by the israeli prime minister binyamin netanyahu, the palestinian authority president mahmoud abbas and america's ambassador to france and our assistant secretary of state. marchers were also held -- marches were also held in other

cities around the world. tens of thousands of people showed their solidarity with the victims of the terrorist afaction in france. in chicago hundreds of people turned out in the cold yesterday to rally at daily plaza. one of the organizers of the chicago rally was a young woman named eve zuckerman who has lived in chicago for about four years. she said the spasm of violence that has shaken france is not simply an attack on france. in her words "what it real lay means is that anyone who is for freedom and for tolerance is also under attack." in our own country in the days after 9/11, our grief was made bearable by the countless acts of courage and kindness and solidarity we witnessed mongt the corn carnage. so it is in france today. one story concerns a young man who worked at the kosher supermarket in paris that was

attacked on friday. the young man risked his life to hide seven jewish customers in the freezer in the supermarket's basement. he then risked his life again to slip out of the basement and tell the police there were people hidden out-stairs. this young man described the layout of the supermarket and the location of the hostages, crucial details that enabled the police to save so many lives and end the standoff. this young man has been hailed as a here reby citizens of france and by israeli president netanyahu. one more thing: he is a muslim immigrant born in mali. martin luther king jr. told us, we're bound together in a single garment of destiny. the millions of people in france and around the world who marched yesterday and freedom-loving people throughout the world understand this. together in our unity and resolve, we will overcome this

latest assault on our shared values. mr. president, over the weekend as i mentioned as millions of people were marching on the streets of france and around the world to demonstrate the world's unity in the aftermath of the horrible terrorist attack in france the president announced that he would hold a summit at the white house next month to discuss what can be >> the house rules committee worked on many bills, one that would delay the -- the others on homeland security spending. representative chris van hollen talks about workers, wages and the economy. >> on our next "washington journal," congressman bill florez talks about the gop

agenda and president obama's upcoming state of the union speech. then peter wells discusses his party's legislative priorities and u.s. security concerns. later kathy connelly on the effectiveness of current lobbying restrictions. "washington journal" as live every morning at 7:00 a.m. on c-span are in -- c-span. next the house rules committee works on a number of pieces of legislation, one of the measures would scale back measures put in place with the dodd frank bill. the committee took up a homeland security funding bill that the white house said it would veto because of ties to immigration policy changes. pete sessions of texas.

will the committee come to order i know we have a lot of business before the rules committee and i note that at least one person does not appear to be forthright in their support of ohio state -- [laughter] we will assume the gentle man is welcome to do. judge hastings wants to make

sure he gets whatever you are handing out. the rules committee will consider three important bills and i would like to begin by addressing the last, hr 240, the department of homeland security's appropriations act. it will provide $39.7 billion in discretionary funding in the current fiscal year for the department of homeland security. the bill reflects a commitment to defeating terrorism and putting our homeland in better position, protecting it and the men and women who do that every day for the united states of america, responding to national disasters and perhaps more importantly making sure we take care of the salaries of the men and women whose lives are dedicated to keeping our nations safe and to every day are living in cold, lonely and probably dangerous places across the

ports and borders. in addition to the amendments, to address the president's executive amnesty and to hold him accountable for his actions. in december i worked closely with my republican colleagues to make sure the united states house of representatives would position itself to fight strategically against the president's executive actions. that time has now come, just as we promised in december. the house of representatives will not stand idly by if any president ignores the requirements of the constitution. it is the role of congress to write the laws and the president's job to safely execute those laws, not to make them up as we go along. it is both inappropriate and unconstitutional for the president to ignore this requirement. for this president's executive

actions are unlawful, unwise and unconstitutional and through these amendments the house will demonstrate that it takes its role very seriously. immigration policy must uphold the rule of law and our nation's sovereignty and the work being done by members who brought their ideas to the committee. i appreciate so much work that has been put in on this issue. next, the common sense package of bills that reduces unnecessary regulations and makes it easier for business to create better paying jobs. finally, hr 185 provides regulatory reform to businesses and innovators so they can spend less time and money on red tape and more time and money on things that matter like growing their companies, expanding their operations and hiring new workers. first we will hear from the

financial services committee chairman garrett and miss waters and then will hear from congressman marino on hr 185 and then will close testimony from george -- judge carter on hr 240. i want to thank everybody for their testimony today and without objection will hear testimony from judge carter of texas and miss waters from california at the appropriate time. without objection, anything you have in writing will be entered into the record. >> thank you mr. chairman, i will be very brief on hr 37 and hr when a five, my understanding is the administration issued veto threats and we will go through this exercise and it will go where it usually goes

which is usually nowhere. on the issue of the department of homeland security's appropriations act i give the chairman a lot of credit for negotiating a bipartisan agreement but given all the terror threats around the world and the instability around the world, the fact that this leadership was hell-bent -- and represents all-time recklessness and stupidity, i can't believe we are doing this. i would recommend that we bring a clean bill to the floor, approve it and have these political battles in another forum but not playing around with the funding for the department of homeland security. having said that i look forward to the testimony of those two are here. >> we appreciate the feedback from the gentleman from massachusetts and we now have two important guests today. miss waters we are delighted that you are here with us today, your testimony is very important to this community and your opportunity to be here is really

something that we value very much. mr. garrett, i met with you a few minutes ago in my office and talked with you about how important this package of bills are that passed the house of representatives with vast majorities of people on a republican and democrat basis who have indicated their support. we are trying to become ambitious in getting things done that have stalled in the senate. >> let me begin by thanking the chairman or your hospitality and all members of the committee for the hard work and late nights that you all put in here. also for the extended hospitality of mr. syverson, i will take you up on that when we are done. in light of all your late nights, i will be brief. i think the chair for bringing up the bill which is hr 37 which

is promoting jobs creation and reducing the small business burden effect. i will keep it even briefer now i see there is a reward at the end of my comments, the last congress, chairman and slang -- hensling decided to try prioritizing our federal security laws and identifying various we can make fairly minor changes, to free up valuable resources for nation small businesses so they can create jobs. after seven separate hearings and to drug doesn't expert witnesses the committee passed a long list of proposals that helped our businesses and business community. many of these pieces have broad bipartisan support, the legislation before today and bodies many of the most bipartisan pieces of proposal that we have developed.

each title received significant if not unanimous support at the committee level. each one of these titles already passed the full house of representatives in a bipartisan way in a stand-alone bill or part of a broader package as well. i hear some revisionist history by some of our colleagues celeb you make it clear, these provisions have all been substantially vetted and enjoy bipartisan support and will reduce regulatory burdens on small businesses and community banks. as much as i wish we were here today to do otherwise, this is not a dismantling or unwinding of the job creations, don frank act. this congress spent a lot of time talking about dodd frank competition in the marketplace and the codification of too big to fail and repairing its overall ineffectiveness and

constructing a common sense and balanced regulatory regime for the financial market. this bill does not attempt to address those problems at all, what it does is target a number of one off areas of financial markets that the subcommittee has identified that can be easily fixed and i can give you the numbers in a very bipartisan manner. i encourage your support and i guess i will use 10 seconds to go to mr. mcgovern's comment, i share your concern with regard to the president issuing a threat to veto, so is my hope that this congress will and should act to let our voice be heard and it has been heard in the past in a bipartisan manner and we would hope that the president would hear that and be willing after this and that he would be willing to extend and work with us on passage of all of this legislation.

i yield back. >> i appreciate your testimony and as always your view of time and efficiency. i want to welcome miss waters, i'm glad you're here. i notice she did not take the bait on that state cookie yet. not tonight. well, mr. stabbers i'm sure will understand that, you have better taste. [inaudible] >> mr. chairman, and committee members for allowing me to speak. a hastily compiled package that makes nearly a dozen complex changes to the dodd frank reform act. mr. chairman, following last week's unsuccessful attempt to slip this measure through the house with no opportunity for debate, i am hopeful this episode has made claire that

substantive bills should be brought up only after being given an opportunity for a debate bill. that is why i'm still disappointed that this legislation is being rushed through the house floor without a hearing or markup in the financial services committee. our committee has members who have not had the opportunity to consider this package and determine the impact. our committee has not had its first organizer meeting and we are rushing this package which will directly benefit some of the wealthy corporations in america through the house floor without the opportunity to hear expert testimony or offer amendments. ice surely -- i surely and sincerely hope there will be an open debate. it contains a number of bad provisions including some not

previously considered by the house, for example, it contains a provision that restricts the amount of information that a private company must provide to an employee that receives compensation on the stocks which hurts nations workers, by denying employees rights to understand how much their compensation is worse -- worth and the risk associated with that compensation, this provision may be downright harmful to employee investors. the most alarming and substantive change is additional relief for a particular type of risky financial instruments from the volcker rule, a cornerstone of dodd frank. they pushed relief from so-called collateralized loan obligations. after that vote, the federal

reserve did exactly what the republicans wanted, they grandfathered existing clo's to the bulk of the provisions would not apply until 2017, a delay which amounted to three years of relief. republicans though republicans and big banks got what he wanted, they are asking for more that will provide a year or two for banks by extending volcker regulations . mr. chairman, the volcker rules her press -- poker rules'purpose is simple. bangs can no longer engage in proprietary trading -- banks can no longer engage in proprietary trading. the effort to ramp up the appeal of the ruled by swapping it with

a must pass spending vehicle and the dead of night. my colleagues are hoping they can keep delaying the implementation of wall street reform, assuming the public has forgotten how bad the financial crisis was. by continuously asking for more, they have undermined the good faith that existed to smooth the transition under john frank. if that wasn't much, it harms consumers and places administrative hurdles on our federal regulatory agencies by the consumer protection agency bureau, exchange commission, and many others. the analysis is skewed in favor of special interests like big wall street banks. not only will these limit the independence it will also tie up already insufficient resources and put them at greater risk of litigation for

every action they take. this year the cfp be will issue rules on everything from payday lending to student loans to debt collection. if passed, this will jeopardize leaving -- jeopardize those. with our economy still recovering from the $14 trillion financial crisis, we cannot afford to destroy crucial reforms and hamstring our financial regulators under the guise of so-called job creation. i thank you for allowing me to speak today. i understand there are a number of members who wish to offer an amendment. i would ask all these amendments

be made in order. >> thank you very much. it looks like there has been a conflict of what we are really doing today. we are trying to rush this bill to the floor. we are trying to make things better for special interest. we are trying to do a lot of things that really sound very negative, yet all these provisions have been heard him off of hearings then on the floor, and we previously passed these. can you shed some light? >> it failed on the floor. it didn't pass. that's why we are here. that doesn't mean everybody has learned to love it.

>> the threshold is a little different. >> you have the votes. we know that. >> thank you very much. the gentleman is recognized. >> the ranking member raised some concerns she has. one of the issues was additional information and what information should be available. that was one of my bills on the floor. that was a bill that says going forward to try to streamline the process, you should have a summary page on the first of the documents that would make it easier to find the information. that bill passed the house. another point she raises is with regard to the volcker rule. i assume she is alluding to the bill that amend the act to provide banks with clo's and

opportunities to address the issues she is raising. that was brought to the floor and it passed by a voice vote. i can run down the list. there was a total of 11 separate bills that are part of this package. one bill passed 411-12. the second bill came before the house as well. it passed by voice vote. the next one past by 417-4. the next one past 422-0. another one past the house for 20-2. -- past the -- passed the house for 20-2.

-- 420-2. they pass on the most you -- they passed almost unanimously but the bills went to the senate. the senate is where all good bills go to die, even if they pass overwhelmingly in the house. we are saying, let's take these bills that passed overwhelmingly , and let's have the senate take them up again and see what they do with them. and hopefully pass them on to the white house. >> that is what i would have said in preparation for this hearing. we did understand it was a bipartisan agreement, not just to do this bills -- these bills but repeatedly on the floor. i see mr. sherman has arrived who intended to be the other person who wish to speak on the bill.

i know mr. sherman has expressed to our staff to please hurry. i understand you are under some time constraint. can i have you join us at the table rather than going on a separate panel? we would like to include you. i know we have already gone to open questions, but i would like to defer to you to give your statement. >> can i ask mr. sherman to take these away from you? >> my goal is to become a heavyweight on capitol hill, and these will help. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. garrett went through the list. i have the amendment. it is a short amendment.

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

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

it might be great policy. it might be spectacular policy. how are you supposed to know? how is the house supposed to know? the house never considered this. the committee never considered this. at least if you believe in this process, give us a chance to strike title viii on the floor and then you can come tell us this is a collection of 10 bills that have received committee attention and support, in one case not overwhelming support, in the rest overwhelming support , or have been passed by the house. otherwise, don't allow us to be forced to vote on 10 provisions that have been considered by the committee or the house and one sneaky one that hasn't. >> thank you very much. >> the gentleman from california has one of the better attendance

rates of the committee, and i commend him on that. he may have forgotten or was just not there but the committee did have a hearing on clo's. to your point saying we have never had an issue, never had a hearing, never discussed it, that is incorrect. we have that discussed. before you came in the ranking member raised this issue already. i pointed out the legislation that grew out of that legislation actually passed the committee, came to the floor and passed the house by a voice vote so we have had hearings. it passed by a voice vote. that is what the record is. the problem is not in the house where we have biter -- we have a partisan support on these jobs

creations bills. it provides financing for small and medium-sized is mrs.. we do not want to cut that off. we want small businesses to have availability of credit so they can grow and provide jobs. the problem is in the other chamber and the senate. if we give them the opportunity, maybe they will pass. >> the gentle man is recognized. >> we voted on a bill to extend the deadline to 2017. now we are being told that is the same as extending the deadline until 2019. two years matters. the regulators have extended most of this deadline for three years. the question is does two years matter. as to whether we had hearings, we did not discuss 2017 versus 2019. we never voted in committee.

we never voted in the house, and two years on a matter of this importance certainly matters. you cannot go to the floor of the house and say, we have already considered this. you may say five years three years, what's the difference? the regulators have extended it for three years. the only question for legislation is these other two years. that is the question. we have never voted on that question. not on committee. not on the floor. as to whether we have had hearings, our hearings are wide ranging. i am sure someone mentioned this as a possibility. certainly there was no focus on july 21 , 2019 being the deadline, and that deserves

committee attention. >> i think my colleagues for being here today and the effort they put into getting this bill passed. i have no question. >> i just have one question. i would like you to give me an idea of why you think the extension for two more years is appropriate and what you intend to do in that amount of time, other than kill dodd frank. >> i look forward to hearing the answer at hearings. >> at where? >> when we have a hearing and a markup. they be the date should be july 20. we have never had a chance to offer amendments in the committee as to what the deadline should the. >> do you have any information for regulators if they would like to more years beyond what they have been given already? >> yes, it wasn't a one-off.

we had a hearing specifically on this topic. it wasn't just a passing comment as far as timing. the timing was specifically discuss. the two years was 2017 with a two-year extension to the regulator authority so the 219 was discussed in the hearing. whether the gentleman from california remembers that, that was part of the record. the legislation allowed for that extension. why is it important? we're talking about a 300 billion dollar avenue of financing for small businesses. when the initial proposals came out, there was the impact upon the evaluation was significant

and dramatic, and that was why there was a reason and the regulators agreed you need to push back the time for them. if you say something that you own can be owned by you anymore, that you have to sell it right away, the value of the commodity will go down because the purchasers realize we are in a firesale situation. we had a hearing. it was discussed. it was debated. we have witnesses who testified about what the impact would be. >> do you have any information written by the regulators that he would request two more years? -- that they would request two more years? what's the regulators initially said we could do it in a shorter time. the witnesses we have -- >> the regulators were the ones who initially said we could do it in a shorter time. the witnesses said we could do

it over a longer time. this was under the authority the bill would have done. >> my question was do you have any written material or anything to regulate. >> i don't have any material. >> you have nothing. no communication. >> we have had communication. on the two-year extension in addition to the three-year extension. >> there was a request from our republican colleagues to have a colloquium on the floor. there was an attempt to try to

get one going that somehow implied while 2017 was the extension was being pushed, that 2019 from your point of view would have been more acceptable. we refused to engage in that at all. >> the gentleman from new jersey talks about the importance of giving thanks time to do best -- giving thanks -- banks time to develop. -- divest. it says issued before january. what that will mean is that a bank may purchase one of these offending instruments or instruments you are not supposed

to hold under the volcker rule this year or next year, and they don't have to divest themselves of it until 2019. this is not just an extension by which you have to sell that with you happened to buy before they -- that which you happened to buy before they did the bill. this allows you to buy it now and hold it for five years. >> let me ask unanimous consent to put the administration's policy and let me read a bit from it. the dodd frank wall street reform and consumer protection act is helping prevent the kinds of excessive financial risk-taking that caused the worst recession in more than 70 years, that left millions of americans unemployment and resulted -- employed and resulted in trillions of dollars of lost well. these reforms help protect hard-working -- lost wealth.

these reforms help the tech hard-working americans. hr137 unnecessarily put these working and middle-class families at risk while benefiting wall street and other special interests. no further questions. >> thank you very much. >> it's good to see my colleagues again. this is ground we have trodden ready well. i have no need for any questions. >> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. present want to thank everyone for coming to testify. i think both sides have made their arguments. this is a process committee. what is a little disturbing is we are beginning this new session bearing on the side of

closing things down and not so much an open process. i think the concerns may have been taking care of it. we began last week with two closed rules. i would like to think we would have open rules on these. i doubt it. i am sure they would be restrictive in some way, but i just said to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, i get it. you're in control of the house and the senate. especially given the fact there is a veto threat against to and potentially three of these bills, we may be going through this exercise for therapy, so if that is what it is about, i think it is good therapy for all of us if we have an open process. i would hope when the committee votes we would have open process on these rules. >> the gentleman from georgia

does not seek time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> she pointed out very poignantly one of the reasons we should take into consideration regular order, just to the committee she and mr. garrett are shepherds the last election and appointments up until now has produced nine people on the committee that have not had an opportunity. multiply that nine by the remaining members numbering 71 who are here who have not participated, so to argue we have tread over it ignores the need for newer members to have an opportunity to come up to speed. i would like to ask you to

respond to a quote attributed to mr. volcker. i am different from you with a lot of experience on this committee and mr. sherman, with the extraordinary accounting background he has, i'm not an expert. i hear about all of that kind of stuff. it is striking the world's leading investment bankers noted for their cleverness and agility in advising clients on how to restructure companies and even industries however complicated, apparently cannot

manage the organizing of their own activities in five years. what is your response, if any? >> it's one thing when you have to restructure your activities in the business to market forces, whether energy prices go up. it's another thing when the restructuring comes about through government intervention. there was hearings on this. this information did come out. u.s. banks have noticed that would have to be diverted before the deadline, that even the threat of such a divest its your

-- the vestige or -- such a di vestiture, issuance dropped nearly 90% from the prior year. when it is the government interceding in a manner like this, it's difficult for a company to restructure in a timely way because they have already been negatively impacted by the rule. >> can you tell me what these collateral role obligations whether in your judgment of the financial crisis and abuse was a contributing factor? >> i don't know about all the hearings we have had. i don't know that we heard any testimony pointing to clo's

being the root cause of the problem. >> this bill would allow banks to hold onto billions of dollars in risky -- most of us they collateral eyes loan obligations are pretty risky. now you are going to give two more years -- collateralized loan obligations are pretty risky. now you're going to give two more years. it took us 18 months to get some measure of reforms. the rules ban banks from speculating and security markets of taxpayer funds, requiring them to dump their holdings. you just mentioned $80 billion.

a volcker rule delayed would be a major boon through the nations banks. between 94 percent and 96% of the domestic clo market is held by banks with at least $60 billion in assets. according to federal regulators who value the market between 80 million and 105 billion. here is what rubs me wrong. i don't have any stock in any of these companies. i do have a responsibility to the american people to try to keep as best we can rules and regulations and policies that are not ideological or bent on certain factors that we might be mindful of, but 50% of the money

that i just talked about is held by two banks. jpmorgan and citigroup. something is wrong with that picture. it's wrong for a variety of reasons. i gather you would have me say j.p. morgan and citigroup have never done anything fraudulent have never done anything in the nature of accounting fraud. i happen to be at the mercy of holding an account, but i also don't get no contributions, and somewhere along the lines, you are going to get bought right into another financial crisis if you continue down this road. in title vii it would allow over

60% of all public companies to stop reporting their financial statements in computer readable format. you would have me believe small businesses are going to, in light of the fact they would lose out on coverage and investment and hindering the ability to find and stop corporate accounting fraud, that small businesses are going to flourish. i've got news for you. i know a lot of small business owners, and everyone of them that has tried to get a loan has had difficulty in this period. i hear it all the time. it is a continuing thing in the office i am privileged to serve. i will leave it there. i echo strongly the sentiment about returning the regular order around here. not for conservatives or

liberals, if we don't do this for the american people, at some point we may as well not be there. you bring stuff to the rules committee. we are becoming more important than i thought we were at some point. we are going to drill all of these things that have secret packages in them, and something is wrong with that picture. >> the gentleman from new jersey quoted testimony where he said we need more time to divest, but because of the sneaky word in title viii, this extends the time to hold clo's you invest in, so it's not just more time to sell off that which you already own. it's an invitation to buy and hold for five years that which

you do not own. i don't know if the gentleman has any testimony were any bank came before us and said, we need to buy more clo's and 2013 and hold them until 2019. it's one thing to say we need more time to divest. it's another thing to have an amendment that uses the word issued rather than acquired. >> i will join your concerns and hopefully we will be able to address that this bill isn't going to go anywhere. we all know that. if that is the exercise we are required to participate in i don't need the therapy. i have been here too long. it's troubling to me that we are not doing this the right way.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yield his time. does anyone else see time? >>. frank passed -- dodd frank passed in 2009 and passed in the full congress in 2010. arguably almost five years ago. when was the volcker amendment supposed to be in effect by the regulators? it has already been delayed. has it not? i just don't understand where the peril comes. we have already delayed it. is another two years to allow people to establish what they need to establish, is that asking too much? i am asking for general knowledge.

>> you are right on the point. dodd frank was a compilation of over 400 different regulations that had to be put out through a process and eventually implemented. it was an overwhelming task and one which regulators did not meet. they were not able to meet. you were right about what the negative impact could have not been put off. it is another two years we are talking about. the gentleman from california said he has not heard any testimony to the point mr. hastings raised. perhaps the reason is because he was not here on the february 26 hearing, which we did have on this matter. at that hearing it was said from the executive vp of

research. if you have a ruling or the volcker rule impedes some banks from not divesting but from investing in clo's, you will see the appetite reduced by about 80%. they will not participate in the market and will lead to our other point, where we see a significant cost and financing to u.s. companies. her point is not allowing investing and investing you would see a significant drop, and the fire sale price would go down and the harder availability of credit in the market. to the point as far as the riskiness of these entities, i was trying to reman -- remember a number. the actual default rate was not 50%, 40% 20%, or the 2% i was

thinking of, but the actual default rate over the last 20 years was .41%, so these are not risky entities. they are not risky matters we were dealing with. these are not the root cause of the financial crisis. what they are is a workable product that provides credit to the markets. >> let me further ask, so there is a benefit to having these instruments available? what's i am trying to say that. -- >> i am trying to say that. >> there is a benefit. is that correct? >> that's absolutely correct. it's a benefit where main street meets wall street. small business basically benefits from the clo's.

it benefits the employee who is able to be hired by a small or midsize employer who as credit availability so he can expand his business -- who has credit availability so he can expand his business. clo's allow that to occur. >> i think the gentleman from california -- the bank the gentleman -- i thank the gentleman from california. >> this deals with only those issued by january of 2014. that means it only deals with money that went to wall street by january 21, 2014. this has nothing to do with issuing new clo's, money that flows into our districts does

not benefit from this issue and would not benefit from this amendment. this amendment deals only with the big banks that bought clo'ss years ago and want to sell it not to a hedge fund, not to a private investor, but they want to sell it to another big bank that shouldn't be buying it and which dodd frank and visions they will not continue to own so there is no reason to allow a bank to buy a clo issued before january 1, 2014 and dubai at this year, next year, or the year after. they are not buying it from the -- and to buy that this year next year, or the year after. they are buying it from another

bank. the goal is to have the clo's not owned by repository institutions but owned by the entities that can take the risk. that's why has it been ok for regulators to postpone that for this length of time? >> they did not -- >> why has it been ok for regulators to postpone that for this length of time? >> we did not come up with a good approach to this. i think the regulators have already given banks, not three extra years, but they gave them two extra years by not getting regulations out on time, so they will have a total of five years and i wouldn't mind marking up a bill in committee where we can discuss what the date ought to be. the idea that for the first time

we are going to discuss the date july 21, 2019, and now for the first time we are going to deal with not only instruments the bank spot earlier and have to invest -- eggs. earlier and have to -- banks bought earlier and have to divest. >> did you have something to say? >> who benefits from these things? there is a whole list. burlington coat factory, toys "r" us pharmaceuticals, all companies that benefit from this. we are going by the regular order.

this bill came through the subcommittee and full committee. we did have a hearing. the issue of the date was discussed. the issuance was discussed and is the same language we see here. that has not changed. but the gentleman from ohio is recognized. -- >> the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> is the only rules committee member who actually sits on financial service -- as the only rules committee member who actually sits on financial services, the gentleman reference a fire sale. i want everyone to understand how creating a date certain where everything has to sell these and no bank can buy them and you limit the number of buyers and increase the number of sellers, what that does to bank capital, and while most of

the clo's have been issued by big banks, it is the only mechanism for small community banks to help mainstream businesses that might be bigger but they can buy into the loan and own part of it, and it allows them to help businesses that happen to be in our geography. i have a lot of community banks in our area. they care a lot about this issue because they are invested in collateralized loan obligations, and they would have to divest. they would have to sell at a fire sale price. could the gentleman from new jersey help everyone understand what that means for bank capital and how that could be bad for our community banks? sorry to give a leading question. >> i think the gentleman already came to conclusion on the question as well. it goes back to the testimony we heard at the hearing that it is a benefit the effect is not only by the issuance but also the

divestiture, and also did the best at your of the securities already issued. -- also did the best at your -- the divestiture of the securities already issued. it drives down the price. i could go through the number of companies throughout the country that rely upon this and would be negatively impacted if we did not move forward on this. >> you don't have to lead the list -- read the list of those companies. those are mostly middle-market companies that used to be small businesses, but they became successful. they may need to do a collateralized loan obligation. they are names many of us would

recognize. they include a lot of people in my district. when i got the list of companies that utilize them, i was amazed how many names i recognized of companies that employ hundreds of our constituents. >> the gentleman is recognized. but i want to talk from a different perspective. many times we understand the jargon. we talk about this. i am sitting here listening to the debate back and forth, which i think is good for the american people. it has become clear the problem is the two years. when you look at all the rest of it 57-0, 52-0.

and one was along the lines of a party. the problem many of us have with dodd frank is what my friend talked about. it is what happens from the bottom line of american public who are trying to get loans, who have been impacted in my area where big banks are present but they are not everywhere. i live where there are a lot of areas. my community banks are getting killed. if you have a fire sale where you are having to do all this at one time, where they are already looking at real estate and other areas, things like this, the regulators have already put it off. the gentleman from california said it took two years to develop the regulations this body put on them.

it is time this body starts doing its job and quit letting regulatory agencies run the american people. >> i want to bake all three of you -- thank all three of you for being here. you did well enough to come back. we appreciate you taking time to do this. we look forward to this debate on the floor. you are now excuse. this closes the hearing portion on reducing small business burdens act. we now have the next panel, the regulatory accountability act 2015. i see mr. johnson is here from georgia, and i also see the gentleman from pennsylvania representing the chairman. if both of you will take your place on the dais, i want to welcome both of you to this

important hearing, and thank you very much for your time as you have been a part of this hearing today. >> thank you very much, both you and mr. johnson are here for an express reason. we are delighted you are here. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. if i can make sure you pull the mike close to you and the green mike is on. the gentleman is recognized. >> good evening. it's a pleasure to be with you. but i know we are joined by the young chairman of the judiciary committee, and i would ask he be a part of this.

we would ask mr. marino to be able to continue with his testimony. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify on the regulatory accountability act. the chairman introduced this. the bill response has to do with numerous regulatory issues. and the subcommittee in the 112th congress. the house passed prior versions of this legislation as hr3010 and as titles 204.

the text is identical to the text passed in the house in 2014 as part of hr4. the american people are more than six years into the worst period of economic crisis since the great depression. jobs have not truly recovered. wages have not recovered. instead, permanent exit from the labor force -- exits from the labor force are at low levels. people have been giving it up because they cannot find the confident path forward. we are not recovery. we are losing something precious. -- we are not recovery. all it -- not recovering.

people have been struggling. people have been leaving the labor pool for the dependency pool. people see no way to start a business and feel in their bones the american dream is slipping away. what is killing the american dream? more than anything else it is the endless drain of resources that takes working people's hard-earned wages to washington and washington regulatory roadblocks in the path of opportunity and growth. today the combined economic burden of taxation and regulation is over $3 trillion almost 20% of our economy. a large part is the burden of regulation, now estimated to reach about $1.86 trillion. the federal regulatory burden is larger than the 2013 gross domestic product of all but the top 10 countries in the world. it is half the size of germany's

entire gdp. it is more than one third the size of japan's. most important the burden is $15,000 per american household. nearly 30% of every child's -- every household income in 2013. no one says we need no regulation, but who can credibly say we need regulations that cost this much? hr185 addresses the cost of regulatory cost based on bipartisan practices of presidents from both parties since ronald reagan. what are those principles? here are some of the most important. require agencies to choose the lowest cost of rulemaking alternative that meets statutory objectives. if needed to protect public health safety, or welfare, allow flexibility to choose

costlier rules but make sure the added benefits justify the added cost. improved public outreach and agency -- improved public outrage and agency fact-finding to suggest better alternatives. provide streamlined administrative hearings. those that impose $1 million or more in annual costs so interested parties can suggest critical evidence, require advance notice of proposed rulemaking before costly agencies positions are imposed. this bill says to every agency fulfill the statutory goals the congress has sent to you. protect health. protect safety. protect consumers. protect the vulnerable. you are free to do that, and you

should do that whenever congress gives you those orders. as you achieve those goals make sure you do it with better public input. test the information in the least costly way. hr-185 brings regulatory reform to hard-working americans. i request they grant an appropriate rule that allows consideration of hr-185. >> mr. johnson, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to speak in opposition of the regulatory accountability act of 2014. i asked the committee to take an order of my amendment. this is a sweeping revision of the administrative procedure act that consulates the agency

rulemaking process through numerous analytical requirements. despite the mantra from the majority party that we want to get the government off the backs of people or we want to remove burdensome regulations, what this regulatory accountability act does is it doesn't streamlined the rulemaking process. it actually proposes new requirements on agencies with the effect of deregulating industries by halting the rulemaking process so these requirements are largely opposed by the leading law experts and they would cause years of delays

in rulemaking or deregulate entire industries through rulemaking avoidance by agencies. as a result of this deregulation, it would seriously undermine the critical role of agencies in protecting public health and safety, undermining protections across every regulated industries from consumers health and safety, environmental regulations and workplace safety to consumer protections. this is part of an of attack -- an orgy of attack. the only basis is the unsupported claims that regulations the road employment and economic growth.

contrary to my republican colleagues assertions that regulations kill jobs, a wealth of unimpeachable bipartisan evidence has repeatedly and effectively debunked this claim. the omb estimated over the last decade that major regulations benefiting the economy between 217 billion and $863 billion a year had a mere cost of 57 billion to $84 billion, so the net result was positive. in fact, in a 2013 study from the san francisco federal reserve, it sounds since the recession there is zero correlation between job growth and regulations. moreover, the san francisco federal reserve also found there is no evidence showing increased regulations and taxes have any affect on the unemployment rate.

if anything, we growth was due to weak consumer demand. earlier studies -- weajk growth was due to weak consumer demand. a study from a conservative think tank testified that focusing on jobs in regulatory debates 10 lead to confusion while the -- can lead to confusion, while the fx are indeterminate. -- effects are indeterminate. a senior adviser in the bush administration wrote in the new york times the nexus between deregulation and job growth is made up and nonsense, whereas the tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations have no stimulative effect on the economy during the george w. bush administration.

the evidence regulations harm the economy the only evidence the study relied on were the absurd figures repeated by the proponents of this bill derived from a study from the research study that found the cost figures were cherry picked, inaccurate based on evidence from decades ago, and without contemporary value. the authors of the study have repudiated its use in policy debates. even if we were to rely on this analysis that only used economic data from years prior to the obama administration, the only conclusion we can draw from it is the bush administration did little to reduce the suppose regulatory burdens the republicans argue undermined jobs and economic growth. i asked that my amendment be

made in order that they exempt all rules the office of management and budget would result in net job creation. under president obama, this economy has roared back to life for the top 1%. unemployment is falling at the fastest rate in decades, and consumer and business spending have catalyzed the most growth in over a decade. our nations growth -- gross domestic product grew at 5% between july and september of last year, and will continue to grow throughout this year. sadly, the benefits of the economic uptick have yet to trickle down to the 99% of working americans, and this majority ruled legislature

should do more to help level the playing field for those workers. this does not do so. it is clear our economy is growing at the fastest pace in years while unemployment is dropping drastically and wage stagnation is entrenched. my amendment would ensure this progress continues. this amendment is designed to confront the assertion hr185 is necessary because regulations hamper job growth. i ask if the amendment is not made, that the committee pursue an amendment to raise the minimum wage, along with cutting regulations, but in all

seriousness, i asked this amendment be made in order, and i ask my colleagues to oppose this >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, if i could have you wrapped the mic -- grab the mic. >> i think the chairman of the subcommittee has very well explained the purpose of this legislation, so i will only add common sense legislation. each one of us as members of congress are held accountable directly to the voters. who are the people who have the jobs and running the businesses and so on that are impacted by government regulation. regulators, people writing the letters way should do not have as much accountability. this legislation requires that regulators use the lowest cost

effective way to implement the law passed by congress. it is common sense and provides more accountability to an executive branch that a lot of people think that has far exceeded its authority. i yield back. >> i want to thank all three of you for your testimony today. excuse me. thank you very much. if you would do me a favor and grab one of these chairs probably one to your right. you are exactly right. thank you very much. my staff said that to me a couple of minutes ago and i realize you are getting here being here for this purpose is important. before will continue on with these questions, you are now recognized. >> thank you, chairman sessions for affording me the ability to provide testimony on my proposed

amendment to the regulatory accountability act. the fda is one the most important. ensure the products that america use everyday which is food and other products and medicines and vaccines and devices used to treat and cure disease are safe and effective. the fda is instrumental is ensuring consumer goods are safe before their place on the market and the remain safe area in an increasingly globalized economy food and drugs must remain a top priority. we would unnecessarily complicate the fda rulemaking process and increase the risk of unsafe products in the hands of consumers. it creates potential real harm to consumers and will place greater pressure on our economy by increasing the frequency of expensive product recalls and other disruptions. today, i offer a commonsense amendment which would exempt the rulemaking responsibilities.

it would ensure the fda can react quickly when food safety is at stake. under the terms of regulatory act come it must go through 74 new procedural and analytical requirements. as a result, it could take as much as three years or more for these agency rules to become finalized. three years longer than anyone should have to wait for safe full or safe medicine. i urge the committee to make this amendment in order to ensure we can but interpret the health and well-being of the american people. i yield back. >> thank you very much. we appreciate your testimony and i apologize. i saw you walking a few minutes ago during the middle of testimony. dr. borges? >> i thank the gentleman for bringing this important bill to us. it should be justified and that

should justify the cost. it seems pretty simple. i will yield back. >> mr. slaughter? >> thank you and i just want to quote the bureau of labor statistics. january 2009 when obama took office, the unemployment rate was 7.8%. i october of the year it climbed to 10% because of the recession. last month 5.6% was the unemployment rate, a considerable drop. 2014 was the best year of job growth since 1999. nearly 11 million private sector jobs had been created. i really hate to see this congress try to mess with a good thing. oil prices are down. if only the people who created all of the jobs and a good economy would enjoy and get a

raise, things will be a heck of a lot better. i have got 84 changes, most of reporting, things that regulators would have to do. and so -- put that in the record. >> without objection. thank you very much. i appreciate the gentle woman. >> just -- thank you mr. chairman. it sure looks like this bill is going to make it better for people who want to create jobs in this country and certainly there may be amendment that might be in order to make sure we do things right and look at alternatives. the bill already allowed costlier rules for safety and welfare. i think it is a great start and i hope that i appreciate the

debates and all the members coming and looking forward to getting this bill moving. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> vegans -- -- the gentleman >> [indiscernible] >> without objection. >> and consent to insert the policy into record which would basically says -- i am not going to read it. if the prison were presented with the bill, the senior advisers would recommend a veto. i would say what type rules and accountability and we are the rules committee and again, this is a new congress. we ought to open this thing up and make sure every member has the ability to offer what he or she may want to offer on the floor. i yield back. >> thank you. recognition.

the gentleman does not seek recognition. mr. collins? >> from the judiciary committee and being a part of this last year and hearing some things that need to be pointed out that was pointed out by the subcommittee chairman and chairman as well. the administrative procedures act, there are things people need to understand. i am one that believes government should have a regulatory role but proper. when it was developed, i do not think it was the expense of what is now happening. when the apa, it does not require an agency to identify the cost put before them and require to be considered reasonable. i want to remind our colleagues it does not require the best and most reasonable evidence. for consideration, it must be brought up to date.

there are 4 provisions and they hit the right balance that require agencies to assess costs and benefits alternatives. some that -- something that is done every day. that is what this bill does. let's have a conversation not only the business but at the kitchen table where moms and dads and families and husbands, single moms they do these kinds of things. from my understanding, it is an interesting point. it is based on what the president has issued over the years. they are not permanent or enforceable nor do they find the nation. even president obama's executive board voted and acknowledges that new regulations must take into account benefits. that's precisely what this bill does. it is amazing that my friends across the aisle, i guess they

will not stand up to their president. at this point, our president has said it needs to be a part of it. that is what this bill does and i agree with our president. we need to look at it. mr. chairman, looking at this in a way and there are certain things and my friends said need to be made and i believe the threshold is something we can look at as well. overall, it is a good bill and needs to go before the american people and they want and we are doing our job and looking at legislation and procedures act so we can put together a proper rule. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, i indicated i did not seek recognition but i would ask for unanimous consent if the chair would allow to include the statement a representative sheila joe jackson and support of the regulatory. >> without objection. the gentleman does not seek regulation.

i want to thank this panel. the gentleman is recognized. [indiscernible] >> yes? >> i would like to ask consents to put into the record the united states house of representatives judiciary committee under the white paper submitted by chairman goodlatte that outlined the improvements. >> without objection. >> start with the cost, more public input, and less litigation referred to as the regulatory accountability act of 2015 rule-making requirements and timeline compared to the status quo. >> i want to thank all 4 of you. thank you very much. i want to thank all 4 of you for being here.

this panel is now excuse. hr 185. we now get to the main play of the day and i would like to as the gentleman from texas, good to see you and hope you are feeling better. i know that mrs. lowie is here and you would be the panel that would be prepared to speak to us obviously as a follow-up to the meeting we had last month where the decision was made that we would defer the funding for homeland security away from the rest of the year to march the first. it has been a lot written and a lot said and a lot of activity on this important measure. i believe it has allowed both of

you to not only effectively prepare yourself for the day but the rest of the congress to do. judge carter, i am delighted welcome to the committee. judge, you are looking fit and sound. >> i feel fit and sound. i thank you for allowing me to be here at this time and your leadership in this committee. it is expected that the bill to address the president's executive action on immigration that i wholeheartedly support, resources provided in the underlying bill are under -- are urgently needed by the many women support our homeland in for our national security. last week, we watched a terrible tragedy unfold in paris. like 9/11 and many others have

occurred in the last year remind us that our democratic values are under constant attack and serve as a warning we must remain vigilant. make no mistake what happened in paris could happen anywhere including the united states. we must provide the resources necessary to find and root out the seeds of terrorism. passing the fiscal year 2015 department of homeland security appropriations is imperative and we cannot fail to meet the challenge and mr. chairman, i am here today with mrs. lowi, the ranking member of the whole community presents this that combined unwavering support for our personnel and operations with the true fiscal discipline. the bill is within the subcommittee's allocation, $39

billion and it contains no earmarks. and the interest of time i will not outline all of the programs and activities but i would like to point out major things. specifically this bill presents no discretionary funding to implement the president's executive action on immigration. excuse me. let me repeat break it provides no discretionary funding to implement the president's executive action on immigration. this agreement contains funds for 23,775 officers and 21,000 border patrol, the largest force in history. it does not increase customs as proposed by the president's budget. it includes a $3.4 billion for ice which is $600 million above

the president's request to fully fund 34,000 legislative mandated. 3732 new family detention units and 3007 new officers to detain and deport and inter the influx of families and unaccompanied alien children across our southwest border. the screeners at 45,000, 1000 below last year's level. it provides additional funds for screening. it funds increased coast guard operation powers and critical source and transit zones, fully funds the national security cover and one additional aircraft. the bill funds all critical

cyber security programs. it provides $7 billion to fully fund fema. fema operational needs for delay -- for disaster relief fund and also it funds first responder grants at the levels to include sustainment of funding for firefighter assistance, emergency management performance grant. it will also fund completion of the national agro defense. it also instills real fiscal discipline. by reducing headquarters and administrative costs across the department is maintaining rigorous oversight, withholding funds, and other statute mandates and stringent reporting requirements on everything on major acquisitions to ammunition inventory, purchases, and usage. mr. chairman, this homeland

security bill it meets the security needs of our nation and i believe it is worthy of every member's vote. i urge my colleagues to support it on the floor and i am happy to answer questions as you may have. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. welcome. good to see you. i had a chance to be with you the other day. a real opportunity to speak not only about the important measures but our friendship. >> i thank you very much, mr. chairman and i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. i am very pleased to testify with my friend, judge carter. the democrats side of the appropriations committee has not yet assigned a ranking member to this are any other subcommittee. that is why i'm very pleased to be here today. we all know the outcome of this dangerous game being played with this bill today. the legislation, which judge

carter discussed i could support. in this form, unfortunately, it is not -- all we are doing today further delaying an action of a full year bill. again, i want to make it clear that the product that judge carter was discussing was negotiated between republicans and democrats. it should've been in lot today as far -- in law today as part of the cromnibus. what we are doing today is further delaying enactment of the four-year beer and i am extremely disappointed that republicans insist on making congress layout this at the expense of our nation's security. it has taken a less than two weeks for the republican congress to prove it can govern

responsibly. the republican majority already delayed a four-year funding bill for homeland security when they dropped it from the omnibus package in december. now more than a quarter of the way through the fiscal year, we continue to play games with the funding for an agency which is created to protect the nation from terrorist attacks. last week, as we know, terrorist murdered 12 people at the office of a french magazine, a police officer, and 4 individuals at a kosher store. that is a tragic example of the kind of out of the blue attack that the department of homeland security along with the other law enforcement partners is working hard to prevent here in the united states of america. partisan games on immigration will delay grants to states and

major urban areas, funding that is critical for supporting local first responders in our defense against homegrown terrorism and for future centers where the department of homeland security gathers, shares, analyzes with state local law enforcement partners. the failures to enact the full year bill will slow down efforts of the secret service to begin addressing problems with the security of the white house. the department will be limited in its ability to move forward with the secretary's union efforts to make the department more strategic and improve coordination among its subcomponents. resources to detain truly dangerous criminal aliens will manage another rapid influx of unaccompanied children and families across the southwest

border are in jeopardy. acquisition of the final national security and other coast guard assets will be delayed. construction at the national agriculture facility. mr. chairman, and members of the rules committee again, i want to say democratic members and republican matters -- members of work hard to put a really good bill together. this situation in the world we are living in threatens each of us and our families, no matter where we live in the united states of america and abroad. i urge you, i urge my colleagues to give up the parsing games that threaten our national security and bring a clean bill to the house floor and let's vote on it, implement it immediately. thank you. >> thank you very much. i had a chance along with this

committee to hear good and bad things and difficult things that the american people have been working with and within working with this administration and trying to make progress. a few things have stuck out at me as the president's decision as he did when she knew would be unpopular and would be highly partisan and he knew when not be seen well. i put up with a lot of things and this committee in every year for the last four or five years we have been disappointed that this administration wasted $1 billion trying to get health-care records from the department of defense and department of veteran affairs. we are constantly about infighting, the bickering, the mistakes, the president was on the tv today and they were talking about the mistake about our representative to paris. i cannot fix these things. none of us can, but we have a voice.

the voice we have from the u.s. house of representatives is where we speak and try to work on behalf of the american people and with this administration on the things when we give them money. we are going to withhold the money because we believe what the president did was unlawful illegal, and unconstitutional. the day we got to the point where a president can unilaterally decide he will make law because the window and then i asked is a sad day. so, with great fairness back to you, i want to you we simply want to say back to the president, six or seven weeks ahead of time, mr. president, we disagree with you. that is our prerogative. there is a process. we will find out if people agree with me on this committee and when it goes to the floor what people think. we'll find out when the united states senate has an opportunity to do that. i will tell you ash you and i

recognized that a whole bunch of people deeply disagreed with the president, whether it be a republican or a democrat unilaterally making decisions rather than his body doing so. the president has put it up to us and we will put it back. i think judge carter along with the other leaders of this house and i would expect you to ask the president to just be as reasonable as we are and that is to try and look at the bigger picture and realize we have to resolve it. that is what we are attempting to do. >> just a word, mr. chairman and i will not continue this discussion. but i do inc. that the issue of immigration reform deserves a serious, full discussion on the house floor. i have been supportive of comprehensive immigration reform. the point i wanted to make and i feel strongly about it, again,

the homeland security bill should not have amendments attached to it on another subject. we worked very hard. democrats and republicans could this homeland security bill is chaired by my friend judge carter is a good deal. it should stand on its own nothing else should be attached to it. chairman -- if chairman rogers were here today, we worked so hard on the veteran affairs issues. we had people from the department of veterans affairs and military department, that is a serious issue that still has not been resolved. but homeland security, this bill given what is happening in the world today i know would've talked about this. i have eight grandchildren and i worry every day. i do not want to think and immigration debate is being tied to this.

it makes it a political issue and frankly i think is unfortunate that a majority of the people in the united states wants us to focus on homeland security. i yield back. >> i am willing to go to the president with this and this is the way we do things. >> if i may -- thank you. i understand the passion of the bill. it is a good bill. i also have the same passion for the bill that is being discussed and when we go to the amendment process on this bill that raises the issue of this executive order that the president has basically stemmed -- stepped up and slammed in her face. i think the american people is looking for that debate as well as the debate on homeland security bill. the american public supports and what we have done within and we have been creative and we have

met with the senate. this is a good bill as it sits. i also support the amendment process going forward in this debate today because it is not up to the american people to hear both sides. and as you effectively stated, this is the method by which we will hear the other side of the story. i think the other side of the story needs to be heard. i yield back. >> i think both of you have been very effective today not only present your views and ideas that for being here today. and just, i am glad you are back. i know there've been gone and we are delighted that your health is restored back to it. the only thing you did not say is go texas tech red raiders. everybody else had a shot. [indiscernible]

i know who your team is. good for you. >> thank you, mr. chairman is. i have no question. >> the gentlewoman from new york. >> i have no questions. i think we all know where we are. i did want to ask something. i remember when we had a hearing on whether or not the president could be soon before executive orders. did that guy -- sued for executive orders/. -- did that die? >> lets me see if i can find out. we just passed -- >> it was in the package. all right, thank you. >> you are recognized.

>> i have always appreciated that everybody has worked together to produce a product that folks are proud of. i just wanted to ask the 2 of you and i'm frustrated not that we are dealing with a four year appropriations bill today but we do not handle this back in may with the subcommittee passed it or back in june or back in december when we did the omnibus. wasn't there anything that went on in the conversation that you were privy to that lead you to believe that but for the president issuing of the memos that homeland security would've been stripped out of the omnibus appropriations? i remember the conversation, how are we going to fund the congress and people were looking at a postelection. but after the president did what he did in the way that he didn't, we found ourselves. do you

>> mr. chairman, if i may be heard. i will give you my personal opinion. i think that was distraught that broke the camels back. i think back in may and june, inactivity in the senate slowed things down substantially and we were not in a position to bring -- normally, homeland is one of the first bills to come out because we were not getting a lot of response at that time, it was slowed. the president conversation that he was going to do this, i think put brakes on it too. >> i just want anybody to think -- >> i truly believe the lead up to it where he said he was going to do it and when he did it, we