the governor of tennessee made a similar request. greta wodele brawner: you can continue to follow this debate by going to the atlantic's website. on twitter as well @theatlantic. david graham, thank you for your time. that doesn't for today's washington journal. the house is about to gavel in for their legislative session. iq for watching will be back here tomorrow morning. the speaker pro tempore: the hoist will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: speaker's rooms washington, d.c. june 24, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable

john jay duncan jr. to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes, but in no event shall debate continue between 11:50 a.m. you may be seated and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. there's been a flurry of activity regarding infrastructure funding in recent days. we had the first hearing in the ways and means committee in the 55 months since my republican friends took over to deal with

transportation finance. there have been press conferences and proposals and a few other hearings have been scheduled, but despite all the furor, there is only one solution which is broadly supported, which is easy to implement which does the job. it's raising the gas tax. now, we heard at the hearing on ways and means that -- the three basic arguments that are offered against that. that it's not politically possible. that there's really no time to do this. we have to extend it through the end of the year. and this would somehow be a burden on the families. actually, that is not true. the notion that it's not politically possible is not remotely the case. there are 20 states in the last 2 1/2 years that have stepped up to raise their gas taxes. and ironically information

submitted by the road builders association to our ways and means hearing pointed out that the legislators in those states who voted to increase the gas tax were re-elected at an over 90% rate and the legislators that voted for the gas tax in the states were re-elected at a higher percentage than those who voted against it. if anybody needs more proof, just look at what has happened already this year where six very red states -- idaho utah, south dakota iowa, nebraska overriding a governor's veto, and georgia, have all met their responsibilities raising the gas tax. it absolutely is something that can be done with a little political courage. the notion that somehow there's no time, that we've got to fuss

around and it's going to take extensive hearings to come forward with a proposal. only if it is a complex, convoluted untested, and controversial proposal. raising the gas tax would take about one week's work, could be implemented quickly and is the simplest and least expensive to implement. what about this notion that somehow it's a burden on american families? well, the proposal i introduced would cost less than 25 cents a day. those families that would pay the increased user fees are suffering over $350 a year damage to their vehicles from poorly maintained roads. the american society of civil engineers suggest that that cost per family is going to be over $1,000 a year by 2020. and the american public is pained being caught in traffic

and congestion $120 billion a year. it costs money to them, money that could have been used for more productive purposes, time away from their families. imagine if we just came back from our july recess and dedicated the week of july 13 to solving the infrastructure crisis in this country where america's falling apart and falling behind. the people who were experts at the hearing that weren't heard from could have answered all those questions. where else are we going to find something that is broadly supported by business and labor, by truckers and triple-a bicyclists, engineers, local governments, we would have all those people before us supporting a solution to an important challenge. i can't think of any other issue that would bring all those people together and support congressional action.

we could stop the slide of america falling apart and falling behind. we could put hundreds of thousands of people to work at family-wage jobs all across america while we strengthen our communities, make them more livable, and provide an economic boost for the future. why don't we do that? why can't we take yes for an answer, deal with the broadest coalition of support for any major issue, and have another victory like we did with the s.g.r.? we can do it, it's hard to think of something that would be more important. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon yields back the balance of his time. the chair now recognizings the -- recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. loudermilk, for five minutes. mr. loudermilk: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, throughout my life i have learned that the

american people are strong and resilient. throughout our history we have shown time and time again our unique ability to overcome every obstacle and every adversary that has blocked our path to freedom. this resilience is what has advanced our nation from being ragtag rabble of citizens who took up arms in the american revolution to being the greatest superpower in the world. throughout our advancement as a nation, we have not always been perfect. in fact, we have made some grave mistakes. however, our shared dedication to liberty and justice for all people has put us back on course. and though it takes years or sometimes even generations, the spirit of american exceptionalism overshadows our mistakes and with the spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation we move forward. however when the government and its leaders purposely mislead the american people, they are much less willing to forgive and forget. especially when such deception

puts the people at risk threatens their god-given rights or sovereignty of this nation. mr. speaker i feel the american people and the members of this congress have once again been deceived. and i intend to get to the bottom of it. when the 111th congress ran through this body the affordable care act, the american people were sold a bill of goods with deceiving statements and deceptive promises. statements such as, if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. although this disastrous legislation passed against the will of the people, some americans trusted that the law would not take away their chosen health care plan. unfortunately, the american people found out the hard way they had been deceived. now, mr. speaker, new reports give evidence of another deception surrounding obamacare. prior to the launch of the health care.gov website, officials of this administration assured congress and the american people that personal information submitted via the obamacare website would

be secure and would not be permanently stored. however new evidence suggests this may have been just another bait and switch tactic. contrary to what we have been told, the government is apparently storing american citizens' personal ible information obtained through the healthcare.gov website. if this is true, then this is not only another assault on the good faith of the american people, but more importantly it puts them at significant personal risk. this government has recently shown its inability to secure computer systems and protect sensitive information. in the past several months, we have been inundated with reports of security breaches of government computer systems disclosing personal and official information that potentially harms our national security. with many americans being forced into the government health care exchange, over 11 million people have registered with holtcare.gov. a breach of this system could

be larger and potentially more disastrous than any of the previous breaches which is a serious concern. mr. speaker, the last time i checked our founders gave us a government of the people not a government of elitist, establishment, or executive privilege. we are a nation of laws not a nation of feelings or good intentions. we are bound by the constitution, but that constitution is only as sound as the integrity of those who have sworn to uphold it. the american people expect their government to operate within the constraints of the constitution, the limits of the law, and to be transparent and accountable. unconstrained activity by government agencies has gone on far too long. and now their deceptions and reckless bemavenor is threatening the safety and security of the american people. these actions put the future of our nation at great risk and they must stop. as chairman of the subcommittee on oversight of science space, and technology, intend to diligently pursue this issue, find the truth, expose those who have violated the trust of

the american people, and ensure the illegal collection of data by our government is stopped and the previously collected data is permanently removed. i intend to use the power given to this body through our constitution and the trust invested in us by the american people to right these wrongs. our citizens deserve better than this. and i am committed to ensuring that american people have a nation that is once again free, safe and full of opportunity. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance of his time. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from illinois mr. quigley, for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, last week nine parishioners were shot and killed inside emanuel african methodist edispossibly church in charleston, south carolina. one of the oldest african-american churches in the united states. in the days following the

horrific tragedy in charleston, we pause to reflect and send our prayers to families grieving an unimaginable loss. i wish this tragedy in charleston was an isolated incident, but it seems to be part of a terrible recurring pattern. after national tragedies, society should engage in a discussion about how to address and potentially prevent such tragedies from happening again. let's remember that after katrina we talked about fema and national readiness. but the gun lobby doesn't want us to have this conversation. they accuse anyone who tries with exploiting the deaths of innocent people. with that logic, we couldn't talk about solutions when 13 people were killed and eight were injured during a shooting in the washington, d.c., navy yard. or after a person opened fire during a midnight screening of the film "the dark knight rises " in 2012. or 28 people were shot and

killed including 20 innocent children at sandy hook elementary school. or when a man shot three people and killed seven others at a sikh temple in wisconsin. or when 14 people were shot and six were killed in 2011 during a constituent meeting hosted by our colleague congresswoman gabby giffords, in a supermarket parking lot in tucson. or when a man opened fire at fort hood texas in 2009 killing 13 people, injuring 30 others. or in 2008, when a man opened fire in a lecture hall at northern illinois university, shooting 21 students and killing six. or when a senior at virginia tech went on a shooting rampage on campus in 2007, killing 33 people and injuring 23 others. or when two seniors at columbine high school attacked their classmates and teachers, wounding 24 and killing 15. or in chicago and cities across the country which experience

gun tragedies every day of. yet since i have come this congress nearly seven years ago the people's house has refused to hold even one hearing on the epidemic of gun violence we are facing. last sunday alone in chicago, 1 people were shot and one man was killed, all within a matter of hours. in may chicago saw 300 people shot and 37 people killed in shootings. every day in america, 297 people are shot and nearly 90 people are killed by guns. according to harvard university researchers, the rate of mass shootings has increased threefold since 2011, occurring an average of every 64 days. let me repeat that. a mass shooting occurs in the u.s. on the average of every 64 days. when will enough be enough? when will we stand up and say we may not be able to stop every crime, but we can stop some of them and at least

minimize the damage of others. when will we realize and acknowledge this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries? when will we finally be able to have a national discussion about gun violence? instead, the gun lobby stymies debate by arguing that no gun regulation can prevent criminals and the mentally ill from killing people with guns. but i don't buy that. sure, no single law or set of laws can prevent every act of senseless violence. ending the american epidemic of gun violence will require more than a change of law, it's clear we need a change in our culture. but oftentimes change in our culture starts with change in our laws by enacting reasonable reforms we can make a difference. we can make it more difficult for would be assassins to access guns, we can ensure every gun in america is purchased after a background check rather than only 60% of guns as is currently the case. . we can improve gun traffic

really data and we can reduce the fatality rate by banning assault rifles and high-capacity magazines that are designed exclusively for killing dozens of people at once. let's face it, when you have an assault rifle with a high-capacity magazine you are not hunting deer. you are hunting people. the gun lobby tries to argue that any attempt to regulate gun access is an attempt to restrict all gun access. but there is such a thing as commonsense, middle ground gun reform and most gun supporters support it. can we stop every shooting? no. can we reduce their frequency and deadliness? absolutely. the first step towards keeping dangerous guns out of the hands of dangerous people is to begin the conversation. let's break the silence, stop the violence and start the conversation. thank you and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, for five minutes. mr. holding: mr. speaker, the obama administration and tehran is running up against another deadline. this one comes next tuesday when the clock expires on reaching a comprehensive nuclear deal. mr. speaker, if you head over to whitehouse.gov there is a site outlining the current nuclear negotiations. on the front page of this website when discussing what a possible deal with iran should do it states and i quote prevent iran from using the cover of negotiations to continue advancing its nuke program as we -- nuclear program as we seek to address all of the international community's concerns. but mr. speaker, what have we seen in reality? a possible deal that could block international inspectors from having unrestricted access to all of iran's nuclear sites to verify their compliance. mr. speaker what could iran possibly have to hide if their

nuclear work is solely for peaceful purposes? we've also seen a deal that doesn't require iran to disclose all of its previous nuclear work and possible military dimensions. it's a bad deal because if iran expects the world to trust them and lift sanctions, why not come clean? i also see a deal that could lift all sanctions once the ink is dry which is a bad deal, because what would this insanity relief be hiding? covert work, the export of terror across the globe. no one in good faith could say that deal before the world right now prevents iran from obtaining a pathway to the bomb. if anything mr. speaker, it puts them on a pathway to the bomb. it's been clear for sometime now that this administration has been negotiating not with iran but with itself. we have seen them consistently move the goal post on what they are willing to accept with respect to a central component

of a good deal. this ranges from the number of centrifuges to inspections to the dismantling of nuclear infrastructure. the parameters of what this administration is willing to accept has moved so many times i don't believe it would surprise anyone if reports emerged before next tuesday that show even more concessions have been made. mr. speaker the administration needs to prevent iran from having a pathway to the bomb. they need to hold good on their word that no deal is better than a bad deal. mr. speaker, i don't see how anyone right now, with the exception of iran, could accept that reported deal as a, quote, good deal. so let's not settle for a bad deal. let's not stand for a nuclear iran. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. costa for five minutes.

mr. costa: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to stress the importance of re-authorizing the export-import bank. its charter, which has served this nation well. the export-import bank is an important program used to support our nation's entrepreneurs, the best in the world, and keep them competitive in today's global economy. it is a tool. it is a tool that has enjoyed bipartisan support over the years. just like trade agreements are a tool to in fact enamor and increase jobs here in america good-paying jobs. the bank provides trade financing to solutions to boost the u.s. job growth, and it has been successful in increasing exports for american goods and services, american goods that's

made here at no cost no cost to the american taxpayer. this program is set to expire sadly tomorrow. tomorrow. and unfortunately the house republican leadership is refusing to bring it to the floor for a vote. with -- floor for a vote with thousands of american jobs at risk. american workers and american businesses that are trying to sell their goods and products overseas face a completely unnecessary blow to their ability to compete. in total, the ex-im bank, otherwise known abriefiated, has created and sustained over -- abbreviated has created and sustained over 1.5 million jobs in the private sector since 2007 alone. 1.5 million jobs since 2007. last year alone the bank

sustained 167,000 export-related good-paying jobs. if you want to have build it in america, you got to ensure that american workers and businesses can compete. the ex-im bank provides a vital piller therefore, in our ability to be competitive overseas and it has had significant impacts in the san joaquin valley which i represent. why? many of the businesses i talk to use the ex-im bank tell me, you know, jim we have the ability to compete. we make our products better, but when we are sitting at the table with foreign competitors, many of these countries want to know, do you have a financing plan in place, because contingent upon their ability to choose us or choose our competitors, many of these countries want to know that this can be financially put together in a fashion so that

the deal works for everybody. and that's what the bank does. in my district alone, the ex-im bank has afforded a number of small business exporters, some of which are minority and women-owned, to have exports in places all over the world. places like india, mexico, turkey, hong kong. and i could go on. these businesses export $77 million worth of goods ranging from machinery to manufacturing to crop production of the variety and diversity of agricultural exports that we do in california. as a matter of fact, in california the ex-im bank has resulted in increased exports of over $27 billion. now, let's put this in perspective. last year california exported $176 billion in products. the ex-im bank was responsible for helping finance $27 billion of that $174 billion.

as a matter of fact, $19.4 billion of the $174 billion that was exported last year from california were agriculture products grown in the san joaquin valley. the bank levels the playing field, therefore, for american workers and american businesses, showing them to compete and succeed in the global economy that we live in today. that's just the facts. in these trying times, the last thing congress should be doing is jeopardizing the economic health of our nation by refusing to provide americans with the tools, the tools which is what this bank is, they need to compete effectively in the global marketplace. it's important to note that there is a vast bipartisan support for renewing the bank's charter. let me be clear. despite attempts to paint this as a partisan issue, i do not believe it is. sadly, though, there are some of my colleagues on the other side who have decided to play partisan politics with the

bank, that then therefore threatens american jobs, halting economic growth and undermining american businesses' ability of all sizes to compete in this global market. now is the time for long-term re-authorization of the bank so that american entrepreneurs can use this tool to create more jobs in our country. this can only happen with bipartisan support. i stand and ask my colleagues to re-authorize the ex-im bank on behalf of american workers and american businesses. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mooney, for five minutes. mr. mooney: thank you, mr. speaker. the single greatest threat to the national security of the united states is iran's drive for nuclear weapons. the result of the negotiations being conducted by president obama and our western allies will shape the long-term

security and stability of the united states for years to come. iran is the world's leading sponsor of terror, a strong hold for terrorists whose very mission is to spread oppression. iranian leaders have called for the complete annihilation of israel, calling israel is, quote, barbaric, wolf-like regime closed quote. iranian leaders have said that united states of america has quote, no place among the nations, closed quote. by its own declaration, iran is not looking for a peaceful path of coexistens. there can be nothing more dangerous for america or our allies than a nuclear armed iran. that is why a bad deal with iran, one that leaves the door open for iranian nuclear weapons, must be avoided at all

costs. in order to aleviate these concerns, the president -- alleviate these concerns, the president and his national security team have said over and over that a bad deal is worse than no deal at all. but will that sentiment actually stop this administration from entering into a bad deal with iran? what i've seen so far through the framework agreement released in april raised serious concerns. under this framework agreement, not a single iranian nuclear centrifuge will be dismantled. no nuclear facilities will be shut down. while some of iran's nuclear infrastructure will be temporarily warehoused, most of iran's nuclear infrastructure remain completely intact. all of these factors point to a flawed understanding of a good deal by president obama. yet, this is the deal we may well be given. 20 years ago, the united states

was negotiating with another country on nuclear weapons development. during these talks with the soviet union and gorbachev in the 1980's, president ronald reagan used the proverb trust but verify throughout those discussions. i do not see this administration using that same tactic. in fact, it seems to me that in regards to iran the obama administration is operating on the principle of trust and don't verify. as things stand these ongoing nuclear negotiations are placing far too much faith in a country that has proven them self both deceptive and unpredictable. mr. president, a good deal must contain the following five points. first, a deal that requires anytime anywhere inspections. second, a deal that would only lift sanctions when iran demonstrates compliance with

its obligations. third, a deal must require iran to provide a complete report of its past nuclear activities. fourth a deal must require iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons infrastructure. and last but not least, a good deal must not allow iran to become a nuclear state ever. without these conditions in place, the united states will, without a doubt, do prioritizing a bad deal over no deal at all. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, for five minutes. mr. tonko: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize a very dear friend, dick horrigan. richard hails from my hometown of amsterdam new york. dick turns 90 on friday and it is worth noting this milestone because he has epitomized the

generosity, the humility and dedication of the world war ii generation and has made amsterdam a better place as a result. richard t. horrigan wasn't born in amsterdam or grew up there. the sport he continues to enjoy at the nearby saratoga racetrack, dick was a shipper a shipper from scranton, pennsylvania. after serving in the navy in the pacific during world war ii he enrolled in georgetown university and on a blind date he met the beautiful daughter of donald and agnus millie of amsterdam and they were married shortly thereafter. upon dick's graduating from georgetown law school, marie convinced him to move to amsterdam and begin his law practice there. . dick has been a pillar of our community. retired now, he was very active in the american bar association and american college of trial

lawyers. dick was the consummate attorney and the leader in his field. he was the village attorney for nearby haggaman and practiced before the united states district court, the northern district of new york, and the united states court of appeals. in the 1970's he struck out on his own and his son tim, joined him to start horrigan and horrigan which continues to be one of the top firms not only in amster dan but throughout the greater capital region. while his love of his profession is strong, his love of family is even stronger. when marie passed away in 1977, he he found himself spending more and more time with elie, who had been widowed many years earlier. in 1979, elie and dick were married. this good looking couple merged two great families and brought them even closer together. dick is the pay tree arc of 13

children, 33 grandchildren, and, yes, three great grandchildren. while many of them live outside of the region now, they all come back to visit, especially in august, when that historic saratoga racetrack is open. in addition to horseracing, his other passions include golfing and helping saint mary's catholic church, where i would often see him at mass in the mornings. we wish a happy 90th birthday to richard. i hope there are many more to come, dick. you are a beloved, reliable pay tree arc of an awesome -- patriarch to an awesome family. my message here on the house floor s. to a great man, have a great day. it is my honor to recognize your 90th birthday. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan, for five minutes. mr. duncan: thank you mr.

speaker. mr. speaker, week before last the greatly respected conservative columnist, thomas soul wrote what lessons might we learned from the whole experience of the iraq war? if nothing else, we should never again imagine that we can engage in nation building in the sweeping sense that term acquired in iraq. least of all, building a democratic arab nation in a region of the world that has never had such a thing in the history that goes back thousands of years. week before last the long time conservative leader, david king wrote in the "washington times" about our middle east wars. quote, the concept of u.s. national interest was stretched beyond any rational meaning, with the argument that democracies don't go to war with democracies. so rebuilding the world in our own own image was seen in our national interest. he went on and said america took on more than we could

possibly handle. the result is a generation of young americans who have never known peace. a decade in which thousands of our best have died or been maimed with little to show for their sacrifices. our enemies have multiplied and the national debt has skyrocketed. week before last, the publisher of the american conservative mag, john utley, wrote an article titled 12 reasons america doesn't win its wars. the mag said, quote, too many parties now benefit from perpetual war mongering for the u.s. ever to conclude its military conflict. mr. utley wroted conservative columnist preggy noonian who o wrote, quote, we spend too much on the military, which not only adds to our debt, but guarantees that our weapons will be used. she quoted your honor expert who said, quote, policymakers will find uses for these weapons to justify their expense which will implicate us in crises that are none of our business. conservative icon william f. buckley shortly before he passed away came out strongly

against the war in iraq. he wrote, quote, a respect for the power of the united states has engendered by our success in engagements in which we take part. a point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of purpose but misapplication of pride. he added that if the war dragged on, as it certainly has, where there have been skepticism about our venture, there will be content. a couple weeks ago we saw an iraq army which we have trained for years and on which we have spent megabillions cutting and running at the first sign of a fight. we should not be sending our young men and women to leave and our fight in any war where the people in that country cannot willing to fight for themselves. mr. speaker, fiscal conservatives should be the ones most horrified by and most opposed to the horrendous waste and trillions of dollars we have spent on these very unnecessary wars in the middle east. last week, 19 republicans voted

for a resolution saying that we should bring our troops home from iraq and afghanistan. the republican leadership of the foreign affairs committee did not want any republicans to speak in favor of that resolution. so, mr. jones, mr. sanford, and mr. massie requested and received time from the democratic sponsor, mr. mcgovern. i did not want to do that. but i add least wanted to point out today that there has been nothing conservative about our policy of permanent forever endless war in the middle east. president eisenhower in his most famous speech warned us against the military industrial complex. we should not be going to war in wars that are more about money and power and prestige than they are about any serious threat to the united states. i think president eisenhower would be shocked in how far we have gone down that path he warned us against. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, for five minutes. mr. nadler: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise to express the profound hope that the supreme court in its upcoming decision will strike down laws that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying and ensure all states recognize lawful marriages performed elsewhere. these four cases are an opportunity for the court to end legal discrimination against committed gay and lesbian couples and their children, and to re-establish marriage as a simple right. one that is fundamental to our very existence and survival as it was called by justice warren in loving vs. virginia in 196 much. as a country we can no longer allow state governments to burden their citizens by refusing to grant them marriage licenses based on who they love.

since my earliest days in the new york state assembly i have fought alongside the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community for equality under the law. i spoke out in opposition in 1996 congress for the first time created a federal definition of marriage with the defense of marriage act, doma. solely for the purpose of excluding gays and lesbians from receiving federal marriage benefits. i have long carried legislation to repeal this insidious law from authoring the respect for marriage act to leading the congressional amicus briefs in both windsor and the current marriage equality cases before the court. even a full repeal of doma would still leave individuals vulnerable to continued state discrimination which is why there must be a guaranteed right to access the benefits of marriage regardless of where a couple may reside. when my constituent and friend began dating in 196765, and accepted her proposal in 1967, she was not thinking about how the government would view her relationship. she was thinking about the joy

and happiness that comes from beginning to shake -- shape a life with partner she loved. 40 years after that proposal, they were able to legally marry in canada. outside of this country and state they call home. no one in a free and just country should be forced to leave their home traveling away from friends and family across state lines, in order to get married. nor should anyone be faced with humiliation of being denied government benefits. the tragedy being barred from a partner hospital bedside or indignity of being refused any of the other benefits that come with marriage that millions of americans access every day because the state refuses to recognize their otherwise lawful marriage. denying recognition of same-sex relationships signals to a couple their family, and others, that their bond and love is less deserving of respect. harming the individuals and creating divisions within the fabric of our society. after thea's death edit fought all wait to the supreme court in united states vs. windsor to

establish what so many of us known for decades. that laws that deny recognition of legal same-sex marriage serve no legitimate purpose. stigmatize and shame american families. and are a depravation of equal liberty guarantees of the constitution's fifth amendment. it is time for the long arc of history to continue to bend towards justice and for similarly discriminatory state laws to be struck down once and for all. should the court rule for equality, there will be no losers. no one will be harmed by the granting and recognition of same-sex marriages. those claiming otherwise are either proposing -- promoting discredited claims, or falsely believe they have a right to involve themselves in the private affairs of others. more than 70% of americans already live in jurisdictions that provide for same-sex marriages. it is unconscionable that anyone who proposed to continue to deny universal access and recognition as well as the associated safety and security to these families. the court has the immediate responsibility to expand upon

its decision in windsor to ensure that state laws comply with established basic constitutional protections and that all americans are given the equal respect and support they deserve. much as in lovey vs. virginia which also rolled back government forced discrimination based on race outdated prejudices and intolerance cannot be allowed to rule the day. it is time we make the constitution's promise of equality a reality for gay and lesbian couples throughout the nation. regardless of the fourth coming decision, we have a long way to go to ensure full equality for lgbt americans who can still be fired from their jobs, denied housing, and turned away from stores simply for being who they are. we must work together to pass comprehensive nondiscrimination legislation to protect these vulnerable americans. i thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker like most americans, i store a lot on my

computer and on my phone. family photographs, personal calendars. emails, schedules. and even weekend do lists or as my wife calls them, honey do lists. but this information stored on a phone like this one i have right here, is not private from the prying spying eyes of government. most americans have no idea that big brother can snoop on tweets g text, i.n.s. at that grams, and even emails. anything that is stored in the cloud is available to be spied on by government as long as it's older than 180 days. now, why is that? well, it goes back to the outdated electronic communication privacy act of 1986. that act protects privacy of emails that are less than six months old. 1986. those were the days before the worldwide web even existed. many of us i do, have staff

that weren't even born before 1986. we stored letters in folders and filing cabinets and desk drawers. no one knew what the cloud was because the cloud didn't even exist. there was not any broadband. there was no social media. there were no tablets or smart phones. the relatively few people who used email, and i remember when email was invented, never imagined keeping email longer than it took to send it or read it. it's perfectly reasonable that in 1986 lawmakers tried to protect emails but only did so for 180 days. who would keep anything online for longer than six months? well three decades later, we know. everybody stores their emails. but under current law every email and text, every google doc, facebook message every picture, photograph of vacations is subject to government inspection without a warrant, without probable cause, and without our

knowledge if it's older than six months. that's an invasion of privacy. constitutional protection for six months only, that's nonsense. what's worse, some government agencies don't want the law changed. the securities and exchange commission is lobbying to keep the law on the books. why does the s.e.c. want to maintain this spying ability? well, i suspect they want to be able to read our personal financial records and communications without the constitutional protection of a search warrant. and without our knowledge. it sounds like conduct reminiscent of the old soviet union to me. the spying on the citizens by government. the s.e.c. is not the only government agency that has access to emails over six months old. any government agency can go and confiscate emails older than six months without a warrant, without probable cause, and without knowledge of the person. this is a clear violation of

the constitution, in my opinion. mr. speaker, if you go back to snail mail and you write a letter and you put a stamp on it and put it in the mailbox, that letter floats around the fruited plain until it ends up in somebody's possession. government cannot seize that letter and go in and snoop around and look in there and see what it is. . email is a form of communication. why should government snoop in our personal emails? they don't have that right even though they have that ability. whatever our political disagreements on both sides, most americans, i believe, share the conviction that privacy is protected by the fourth amendment of the u.s. constitution, to protect us from unreasonable searches and seizures from government protect us in our persons, houses, papers and personal effects. government agents can't raid homes or tap into phones or read mail without showing a judge they have probable cause that a crime was committed. then a search warrant must be

obtained. mr. speaker, i was a judge for 22 years in texas, and officers would come to me with search warrants and i would read, see if they had probable cause. if they did i'd sign a warrant. that's what the constitution requires before you can go snoop around and spy on americans. why should our possessions and communications be less private just because they are online? well, they shouldn't be. that's why i've teamed up with representatives zoe lofgren on the other side and lots of other members of congress in both parties to update the outdated epca law. there's also a bill in the senate that enjoys the same support. our bill's restores the original purpose to protect private cisin the way we live communicate, learn and transact business. this legislation would protect the sacred right of privacy from the ever-increasing spying government trolls in america. our mission is simple, extend constitutional protections to

communications in records that americans store online for any amount of time. there's no need to delay. the bill is written, the votes are there, let's pass the legislation. mr. speaker, technology may change but the constitution remains the same. thomas jefferson said in the declaration of independence, government is created to protect our rights. it's about time we make government protect the right of pry is i -- privacy rather than violate the right of privacy and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. kilmer, for five minutes. mr. kilmer: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today to honor dr. floyd the president of washington state university, who passed away this past weekend. let me start with a little bit of background. every member of my family went to the university of washington so i was actually raised to root for the huskies and to root against the washington state university cougars. now, before dr. floyd passed, i

admitted to him that having worked with him over the years and having admired his leadership, i suddenly found myself rooting for washington state university too. you'll be glad to know that eventually my family started talking to me again. i was proud to call elson floyd a friend and a partner. he led the university during incredibly difficult times in our economy and he never hesitated to make tough decisions that he believed would be best for his university and best for his students. that even included cutting his own salary during the great recession. he fought for opportunities for his students and in fact the number of students of color at w.s.u. doubled during his tenure. i think it's worth pointing out, he wasn't just a leader for washington state university. he was a leader and a visionary for all of higher education in washington state. it wasn't just about what was good for washington state university.

it was what was good for higher education, how do we make sure we have an ethic where we're advocating for more people to have more opportunities to get more education to higher levels? he understood that. he understood that because he understood that education is the door of economic opportunity because he had lived it himself. he did all he could to ensure that opportunity was felt not just in washington, not just at the university of washington in seattle but all throughout our state. we saw in my neck of the woods at olympic wood because of dr. floyd's leadership w.s.u. set up a four-year program in engineering. that sounds kind of wonky but here's the reality of it. he did change lives. it meant young people could see the opportunity to actually learn at home, study for four years, get a degree in engineering and then go work in private industry or go work at our ship yard. there are now young people that

have opportunities they wouldn't have before if it wouldn't be for his leadership. what he did changed lives. he was such a good man. he was ethical and he was wise and he had that extraordinary combination of big heart and big brain and courage. his life has been celebrated in the days since he passed, and i just want to be one of the people to celebrate him. i'm going to miss him and i want to extend to the entire w.s.u. community my condolences but most importantly i want his family know -- to know that we lost a very special person and that our thoughts and prayers are with them. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee mrs. blackburn, for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. one of the things i hear from my constituents so regularly is, what are you doing about our nation's debt? what are you doing about this

out-of-control budget? and from time to time at our committee we would hold hearings on an inspector general report and actually look at some waste. and this started our office thinking and some of us on budget committee thinking about how do you begin to quantify that and hold these agencies accountable? as one of my constituents said, you know, it seems they are always after one of us, a small business owner, but they never go ask a federal bureaucrat or a federal agency to pony up or to pay back money or to be held accountable. so in our office, our interns this summer have worked with us on a project to actually begin to quantify this waste and to look at these inspector general reports. mr. chairman, this is what we found. just taking the reports from the 70 agencies that have

inspector generals and looking at a four-year period of time from 2011 to 2014. what we found is this, we could put our finger on $105.7 billion of waste. that is $105.7 billion of waste, of taxpayer money that is being wasted. it has been identified by the inspector general's office. that works out to about $1.5 billion for each of these 70 agencies. now, what was of concern to us was the fact that many of these agencies are doing nothing about it and we found that when you look at the reports that have been issued which totaled 81 different reports, the reports for which a

management decision was made during the reporting period was only 30 of those reports. so 30 times management said, you know, that they are going to go in and they're going to take an action in response to the recommendations that the inspector general has found. now, one of the things that we looked at was where these wasteful occurrences continue to happen and who are the repeat offenders when you look at these i.g. reports. let me give you some examples, mr. chairman. department of defense, $38.2 billion that has been identified. this is one of the reasons that republicans are pushing to audit the d.o.d. and hold people accountable for the wasteful spending. health and human services, $10.3 billion. we found that $2 billion -- $2 billion went toward the obamacare website which still

is barely working. department of agriculture $9.2 billion. social security administration $9.1 billion. department of energy $7.7 billion. and by the way, solyndra, which a green tech -- a green energy firm filed for bankruptcy in september 2011, after they got $536 million taxpayer dollars. so the list goes on and on. and what we are going to do and i commend chairman price for pushing forward to hold some hearings with these inspector generals, with these departments to drill down on the total number of reports and to hold them accountable for not taking an action and looking for ways that we as members of congress can charge back these agencies for the

continued misuse. not occasional miss use, not one time -- misuse not one-time misuse but continued misuse of taxpayer dollars. when you look at the list of these agencies and what they've done year after year, there are some of these agencies that end up in the top 10 offenders every year. 2014, department of defense, h.u.d., health and human services, department of energy social security, department of ag v.a., homeland security, department of education, department of state and the agency for international development. you can look at 2013 continuing down the list the top 10 again defense, h.u.d., health and human services, railroad, ag social security administration, department of education and department of state. repeated waste, fraud and abuse of the taxpayer money. when i came to congress in january, 2003, our freshman class decided our project was

going to be rooting out wasteful washington spending. we continue to be committed to that and i submit our findings to the body for their review and understanding. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal, for five minutes. mr. lowenthal: thank you mr. speaker. you know, today i rise to recognize mr. ken farsing upon his retirement as the city manager of the city of signal hill california, which will be this coming week on june 30. i've had the pleasure of working with ken on local and statewide issues for almost 20 years while i served on the long beach city council, as a member of the california state legislature, and now as the member of the united states congress. i consider ken to be a dear friend. ken has served for over 33 years in community development,

redevelopment, economic development and city management in five southern california communities. he has spent the last 19 years however serving the city of signal hill, and i am honored to recognize his outstanding career. ken began his career with the city of santa fe springs in california in 1981 as an intern. in 1985 he was promoted to community development director. in 1988 he continued his career as the community development director for the city of downey. he later became their assistant city manager and director of economic development. he served as the city manager in the city of -- the city of south pasadena for four years before coming to the city of signal hill. under his guidance the city of signal hill established three commercial centers, the town center north, the town center west and the signal hill

gateway center. he relocated a mercedes-benz dealership of signal hill and a dodge dealership. growing sales and tax revenues from $6 million to more than $12 million. additionally, he completed the development of six community parks and a new police station. ken has been active in regional issues also and he's been a leader with expertise on water issues working with 27 of the area's gateway cities council of government on water, stormwater and urban runoff regulations and practices. he has served as the city manager on -- as the chair of the city manager steering commission for the gateway city's managers group and he was a member of the water quality task force for the league of california cities. as you can tell, i respect and admire ken farsinges a

leadership and service to the community -- farsing leadership and service to the community of signal hill. his impact on the city of signal hill will always be remembered. mr. speaker it is my honor to ask all my distinguished colleagues to join me in thanking ken farsing for his 19 years of public service within the city of signal hill. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ribble, for five minutes. mr. ribble: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to introduce the power of the purse act of 2015. i wrote this bill to restore congress' ability to set priorities within federal spending and quite frankly to better control it. to do that my bill simply removes the firewall that exists within sequestration, between defense spending and

nondiscretionary spending. it allows congress to regain the power of the purse so we can take discretionary spending, we can take defense spending and right now the firewall requires us to spend equally on both. but the constitution gives the power of the purse clearly to congress and as elected representatives we have an obligation to make the hard choices about where your tax dollars are spent. mr. speaker, i want to take you back to 2011, the country was facing its third year in a row with trillion-dollar deficits and republicans and democrats alike here in the house, republicans and democrats in the senate and the president of the united states signed into law the budget control act. the intention of that act the result of a failure of congress to come to a better agreement, the intention of that act was to control spending, to put caps on spending, but to get democrats to agree to it we would say we would only put 50% of discretionary spending on defense spending. yet, republicans, we only put

50% on nondefense spending. . we locked ourselves and tied our hands but we couldn't actually prioritize. in 2011, you could make the argument, some did, i was here at the time but prior to that i was not here, when they argued that we should spend more money here in the united states on domestic spending, and they passed an $800 billion stimulus bill and they had the ability to do that and adjust to the global financial crisis. in 2011 they responded to the terrorist attacks. decided to spend more money on defense. but today we don't get to respond. we have to save 50% here 50% there without regard to the circumstances we face. this makes no sense at all. today we are facing new and unprecedented number of threats. coming from all around the world. isis poses one of the greatest terrorist threats that we have seen since 9/11. while iraq syria yemen,

descend further into chaos. iran remains committed to advancing its nuclear infrastructure while continuing to meddle and support instability in the region. and we have seen an alarming rise in cyberthreats from both nonstate and state actors like russia, iran, and north korea. china has started to build islands in the china sea, raising tensions in southeast asia. by removing the arbitrary firewall that exists under sequestration budget caps between defense and nondefense discretionary spending, we restore spending control back to the congress and we can appropriately respond to these international and global threats. require more focus on defense. tomorrow could be just as well something else, it could be infrastructure right here at home or education. this is national alzheimer's month. maybe it would be spending more there to cure that horrible disease. we need to have the ability here to respond to the climate and environment that we face today, not what it was four years ago.

my bill simply allows us to do that by taking the taxpayer dollars that are sent by hardworking taxpayers here, it allows this congress to make the determinations on what the priorities ought to be at the time that we face those priorities. i know democrats are concerned we'll just blow up and spend more money on defense. and republicans are concerned if democrats control it they would spend more money on discretionary spending. my bill does not remove the caps, but it does make this congress have to debate with each other and find a conclusion that makes the most sense for the american people because times have changed right here in the congress. today there are many republicans who are more libertarian minded and they would prefer not to spend money on defense. they would prefer to spend it domestically. rather than roads in afghanistan, they prefer to build roads here. i have colleagues on the democratic side feel we need to focus on the national defense. they serve on the house armed services committee or the foreign affairs committee and well aware of the national defense threats we face.

but we can't do anything because we reluctantly hold on to bad policy. my bill is designed to correct this once and for all by removing the firewall we get to have the control of the purse once again that the constitution has given us. benjamin franklin said that a nation is best off when control of its money is handled by those who are the most immediate representatives of the people. this chamber, mr. chairman, is called the people's house. each of us represent well over 700,000 americans. and our job is to represent them to the best of our ability and we should not and cannot continue to tie our hands with some arbitrary decision that was done, maybe out of necessity, four years ago, but doesn't recognize the threats today. i encourage my colleagues to be part of this process and co-sponsor the power of the purse act of 2015. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the

a wune of the nine killed in the south carolina shootings. live house coverage when they return at noon here on c-span. in the meantime, the house ways and means subcommittee on oversight is holding a hearing on house the health care laws impact insurance premiums. it's been under way for about an hour. witnesses include legal scholars and state insurance commissioners from tennessee, maryland, and washington state. mr. doggett: i'm concerned about

what's happening with rising premiums. commissioner, is the increase in health insurance premiums, did that start with the passage of the affordable care act? or did we have issues concerning rising health care premiums before that act ever became law? >> thank you the issue of rising premiums have been with us for a long time. since i have been serving as commissioner tax been a real problem that's actually looking better with the affordable care act than what we saw before. we were seeing people who were sick buying health insurance. if you were healthier you didn't buy it. you opt in if you try to buy it when you're sick, very negative impact on the market. now with the mandate to have it, it's had the effect of helping to hold down the rate increases. we need to do more than that. one of the issues that you mentioned, mr. doggett, was the

issue of pharmaceuticals. we are seeing a major transition to generics. i'm very supportive of the health insurers who wanted to make sure they go generics first, but they need to be able to go to brand name at the appropriate time. they can't discriminate unfairly against consumers of health insurance. when it comes to the issue of insures networks. that was not new. it was something that large employers were instituting, had instituted in the past. which we as regulators don't regulate. it came into the regulated market particularly inside the exchange starting in 2014. if it's done right that's why i adopted rules on that work adequacy, if it's done right it can improve quality and outcome and lower the cost, but you need to make sure your --' holding carriers accountable.

don't let them determine the rules for themselves. mr. doggett: thank you very much. mr. renacci: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. lewis, it's an honor to serve with you. i look forward to reading that book. witnesses, i appreciate you being here. it's interesting, i was in business for 28 years before i came here. i was in the health care business. yes, premiums did go up. but if i ever saw a premium go up more than 8% or 9% it was a shock. today when i go through my district and i hear 62% increase 48% increase 39% increase it shocks me when i hear premium costs are coming down. we hear statistics that say they are coming down. that's not what the real world is telling me when i get back in my district and go to these employers. one thing i do when i go i ask if i can talk to the employees. it's a requirement. i want to talk to your employees. i ask every one of them buying their own insurance. tell me if your health care costs are coming down.

put your hand up. i realize people are afraid of putting their hand up. i only had one person tell me the affordable care act is helping. maybe i'm going to the wrong businesses. i don't know. i seem to be going to business after business and talking to employees and i also had a similar situation, mr. kelly had, i had an individual at a local restaurant will say to mee, congressman, i now am part of the affordable care act. can you help me, because my husband and i work 40 hours a week and we can't afford this deductible. so we really don't have insurance. it's shocking when you hear some of those stories as well. i do go around to the hospitals. again, being in health care i'm always trying to find out what the affordable care act has done. and i ask the question, emergency room visits increase? at the same time, we are learning about these insurance premium increase we have been hearing, and i have been hearing emergency room visits are increasing. without objection, i'd like to enter this may 5 2015 "wall

street journal" article, entitled u.s. emergency room visits keep climbing. >> so ordered. mr. renacci: they can't get appointment with providers they can find. so they are still going to the emergency room. now, for the panel, i think you would all agree, doesn't greater emergency room use lead to -- does it lead to higher costs or lower costs? each one of the panel members. higher costs or lower costs if you go to the emergency room? >> certainly, i think higher. >> definitely higher. but in the state of washington we have seen about a 10% reduction in emergency room visits. mr. renacci: washington, must be the only state. ohio is not doing that. commissioner kridler: if it's not an emergency situation, go down to urgent care down the street. it's going to cost you a lot less. and that's -- had a dramatic

impact. commissioner mcpeak: i would say higher. commissioner chandler: once you are in the emergency room, there are a wild number of tests that will be performed. insurers aren't capable of exercising review, and as a result of costs can be higher. mr. renacci: i always thought the purpose of the a.c.a. was to -- especially with subsidized insurance was intended to reduce emergency room visits. again, that's what i'm seeing in ohio. commissioner mcpeak, you mentioned that many insurers have made changes on the networks to limit providers people can see. what has your state experience been? commissioner mcpeak: we are now beginning to see very limited networks attached to rates and plans for the 2016 plan year. was i mentioned before. i do think that's an attempt by the insurers to moderate the rate increases. it has been requested and provides choice to consumers so

you could have a skinnier network and potentially reduce your own cost if you're willing to take the risk that you may not have full access to the wide provider network to which you are accustomed. mr. renacci: what about the president's problem promise if you could keep your doctor worked out? commissioner mcpeak: that's about the same as the you can keep your policy if you like it. that's not working out well. we are hearing from consumers who are having difficulty navigating the federally facilitated marketplace to see where the provider lists are maintained and whether their providers are included. they might get into a product that does not have the doctor which they like. mr. renacci: same thing in ohio. this is an important point. just having insurance card doesn't mean you have access to care. i think you-all agree. commissioner mcpeak: i would agree. for economic reasons access reasons, and utilization, certainly.

mr. renacci: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. crowley of new york. mr. crowley: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for the book. i appreciate your kindness in giving it to all of us. we can never say enough about the honor it is to serve with mr. john lewis here in the house of representatives. particularly in light of what took place last week. in the south. and all he has lived for, put his life on the line for. the events of last week left a scar upon our nation. no one knows it more than john lewis. thank you, john. i love you. you're a great man. opponents of the affordable care act have tried numerous tactics to scare people away from the law. that's nothing new.

seem to think -- if they keep on shouting peopleup increases, obamacare, death panels, people will avoid getting insurance which is somehow a victory for them. but that's no victory for anyone. commissioner kridler, you mentioned a control in keeping the premiums stable. that's the concept of insurance isn't it? bigger, healthier pool of enrollees spreads out costs so premiums can stay steady? commissioner kridler: very definitely. it's the law of large numbers. if you don't get good risk and bad risk and have large numbers a large pool, it's very hard to control rates. mr. crowley: all of a sudden, this rage over premium increase also have the effect of scaring people away from the a.c.a.'s insurance markets making it harder to prevent those very premium increases. aside from that, i don't understand this nostalgia for the way things used to be. before the affordable care act was in place, when insurance

companies could do whatever they wanted for however much they wanted to charge. it's as if there were never premium increases, never problems with health care in the past. that's not what my constituents experienced back in new york. my constituents in queens and the bronx are small business owners who saw their insurance bills go up every year with no explanation. they were families buying insurance on the individual market, or maybe shop around after getting hit with a double-digit increase because they had an old injury that would get called a pre-existing condition. and they wrob denied new coverage -- would be denied new coverage. i'm proud those days are days of the past. commissioner kridler, if an insurance company feels like raising rates to pad their profits without spending more on patient care, can they do that? commissioner kridler: mr. crowley, what we have seen now is insurance companies have to play by standards set of rules so they can't game the system. the game before was try to avoid

six people -- sick people, only insurance healthy. if you were one of the sick you were left out. with standard rules we are introducing competition between insurance companies. that's why i'm surprised in the state of washington we have a 50% increase in insuresers. it isn't gaming employed in the past. mr. crowley: it's also because the affordable care act requires that 80% of the premiums go directly to better care. if congress sumers do get a rating increase notice, they were left to just shrug their shoulders. that's the way it is. that's not the case anymore is it? commissioner kridler: that's correct. in the state of washington we were fortunate because we had a very competitive market, we had none that had problems meeting the 80% rule. that wasn't crew for many other states -- true for many other states. because of the federal law, they have to meet as a standard. mr. crowley: what kind of

regulators like my state of new york or washington can do when they see exorbitantly high rates or the requests for that? what can they do now? commissioner kridler: one is they have an opportunity to shop. if they have a carrier before, if you had a pre-existing condition, you couldn't move to another insurers because they wouldn't want to insure you because of your pre-ex-ising medical condition. you have guaranteedish shue. can you make choice, decision, how much out of pocket expense do you want to v. what kind of coverage do you want. you also want to make sure that your doctor and hospital. i will agree this has been one of the challenges that we have had is making it a lot more transparent so it's easier to identify the hospitals and doctors that are in a particular carriers' network when you make the decision. but you have those kind of choices and didn't before. mr. crowley: in new york state, we have consistently the authority to encourage -- that

was encouraged by the a.c.a. to fight premium increases. the state has come to the rescue and to stop that. mr. chairman, i just want to say, i would suggest that three out of the four panelists would be opposed to the a.c.a., i'm taking a guess, one would be in favor of it. with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> it was a rhetorical question but i'll answer it. what are we trying to accomplish? what we are trying to accomplish is the work of the subcommittee under the house rules which is to evaluate federal programs. mr. roskam: we haven't had a federal program since the passage of the affordable care act. there is nobody that's nostalgic about the past. the irony is when president obama won his election, overwhelming majority of americans agreed on two things. they agreed that health care costs were going up at rate which was unsustainable and basically scandalized by the idea not getting access to an insurance pool based on an existing condition. the loss and regret is that we are focusing in today is to say

we should have focused in on those things, concentrated there, but instead the administration it was their prerogative, went a different direction. the false claim and the false narrative was it's all going to be great. you get to keep your doctor. premiums are going down. so it's not as if we are scaring people away from the affordable care act. the affordable care act is scaring people away from the affordable care act. with that recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding. mr. holding: thank you, mr. chairman. there are many insurers out there who have paid out more in claims than collecting in premiums. blue cross blue shield in texas reported it collected $2.1 billion in 2014 but paid out $2.5 billion in claims. so does anyone on the panel think that it's acceptable for

an insurers to pay out for m claims than it collects in premiums? >> no, it's not sustainable. an observation is our blue cross plan has lost money in the last couple years and we have seen a reduction in their reserves. one of the reasons that they are coming back with a large rate increase is because they have lost money commissioner kreidler: the gentleman from new york mentioned that if carriers don't hit a certain loss ratio, they pay rebates back to the consumer. so we've got a phenomenon where if you lose money, it stays lost , but you can only make it up incrementally because if you make too much it goes back to the consumer. we could debate whether that's good or bad, but you can only incrementally make any losses

back. you can't make it up in one or two years. mr. holding: if you're an insurer, losing money under this scenario, and your options are you either raise your rates, raise your premiums. just pack up and leave and stop insures people in this segment leave the state. this year obviously we have a very complete set of numbers. because we have already had a year and insurers have good idea of what they are dealing with. what impact is the data review for the upcoming year having on the rates. you want to talk about that? >> certainly you can see on my testimony we have had one carrier that actually came in and is asking for a small reduction in the individual rates and care first, our blues plan, is asking for a 30% rate

increase. it's anywhere in between. commissioner kreidler: that's a result of increased cost. commissioner redmer: it's also the result of having uncertainty in the marketplace. with the open enrollment last year you didn't know who you were going to get and what that experience was going to be. you go back to my testimony i speculated that blue cross and blue shield, our large carrier, they saw phenomenon that cause of the disparate -- because of the disparity between the individual market prices and small group prices there were a lot of small employers, thousands of them in maryland, that just threw up their hands they canceled their plans, they disbanded them, and those folks moved and migrated to the individual marketplace a lot of

those folks were already sicker and utilizing care and with care first, they migrated to care first with the lower individual premiums, and those that were young and healthy they were buying based on price and they went to some of the other carriers. i think they were victims of the adverse collection when thousands of these small employers just disbanded their plans. >> representative holding? commissioner mcpeak: thank you. i abbreviate the opportunity to respond. the year of data has been extremely helpful from the 2014 calendar year, but as i mentioned, our loss ratios were extremely high for that year. one of the functional challenges though, is that because of the time schedule around the by h.h.s., we were requiring insurers to file their 2016 rates before they had a very clear picture of their enrollees for 2015. because of the expanded open

enrollment period and the 90-day grace period, insurers were filing rates for 2016 without even knowing who they had for 2015. now, we are a rate review state. we take that responsibility very seriously. we are asking for supplemental information on a month by month basis as real data comes in for 2015. but it's still very, very new. we haven't actually seen a large uptick in positive trend on loss ratio yet. mr. holding: thank you. does mr. chandler have 30 seconds? commissioner chandler: thank you. i would just say the following. don't trust my numbers. trust the obama administration's numbers at least on this. their calculator shows a 14% increase in claims experience projected for 2016. yes, of course insurance commissioners can review rates, if insurers are being greedy, they can strike that down. if they strike down rates that

are, in fact, reasonable, due to claims increases, i expect to see exit from the market. it is not sustainable for an insurer to keep losing money. mr. roskam: mr. smith of movement. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the witnesses for being here. the president campaigned aggressively on the promise to lower out-of-pocket expenses for families by roughly $2,500 a year. however, insurance -- insurers that cover my constituents just in the last two years we have seen an increase by one insurance provider, 21.9% in 2014. this year they have kd requested an additional 22.7% increase. because of the one-size-fits-all approach under obamacare because of the different burdens and regulations and rules. in my opinion this administration cannot continue to believe that obamacare will

reduce costs for families and individuals throughout my district. that's not what i'm hearing back home. and that's what i don't believe is a reality. the families in my district need a health care system with more choice more access, and more affordable. what i seem to be reading on a daily basis instead of more choices we are getting fewer. the burden on insurers is so high that they are consolidating. providers are also consolidating for the same reason. the extra cost and bureaucracy costs by the health care system from this administration has created. now, the supreme court decision makes both another broken promise by the president and the congressional democrats to my constituents who may be required to get health care but may lose their subsidies. my question, mr. chandler, why do you think these premiums are increasing across the country and in my district? mr. chandler: i think the

reason, first of all, is the continued escalation of health care costs. underlying health care costs. and the affordable care act did very little, yes it did a few things, but it did very little to impress that. and in some sense by providing insurance without effective utilization review, to a larger number of people it put yet more strain on the system. the second reason is the adverse selection story which is perfectly foreseeable where you have inadequate controls built into the law. the people who are going to purchase insurance are, as has been experienced disproportionately ill. and that is one of the reasons that you see premium increases going up. the phase out of subsidies is a factor, but it is not the prime marry factor in my opinion. -- primary factor in my opinion. mr. smith: do you think saving the increase in peopleups, for

example 29.9% last year, and initial 22.7 requested, do you see that my constituents getting an increase in benefits, or is it the same care or less care? mr. chandler: i am not aware that insurers are providing additional benefits pursuant to these policies. mr. smith: ok. so they are just getting the same kind of care for more expensive probably. mr. kreidler, my concern is, you made a statement earlier that you felt like things were looking a little bit better. when it comes to premiums and case. how do you feel like it's looking at individuals who are 27 years old? commissioner kreidler: thank you for the question. i think from the standpoint of somebody who is younger. they are not immortal. they run the risks. by virtue of having insurance, it's a lot better for them.

if you're under age 26, they can stay on their parents'policy. at the same time if you looked at the health care spending and thought were you going to actually reduce it in this country, i think that would be unrealistic. both because of an aging population but also goss of changes in health care deliverry. what we have to do is bend that cost curve down so it doesn't go up as rapidly. mr. smith: that's my concern. is the cost curve. i'm the second youngest republican member of congress, so when i look at a 27-year-old and according to the manhattan institute that their premiums have increased since obamacare came in by 97%, that's not managing the cost curve for the younger americans. that to me says that they are definitely not going to purchase insurance if they are going to be -- 97% increase prior to the a.c.a. what's your thoughts on that? doesn't look like it's looking

better to me as a young american. commissioner kreidler: i'm not familiar with any numbers like that from the standpoint -- mr. smith: what numbers are you familiar with? commissioner kreidler: i'm not saying it's not true. i am not familiar. my actuaries are not seeing those numbers in my office. mr. smith: do you have any numbers on individuals in their late 20's, the premium increases? commissioner kreidler: yes, we would and do. mr. smith don do you know them off land -- mr. smith: do you know them off hand? commissioner kreidler: no, i don't. it's just clear i think the real challenges what we face right now is bending that cost curve down as a nation. we have to do it fairly inequitably. leaving 27-year-olds without health insurance is obviously going to be a problem. the test is going to be making sure we have bending that cost curve down so they are getting adequate health care insurance and don't cost impact the rest of us when bad things happen. mr. smith: i would agree. i think the cost curve causes us

to lose more people that would have health insurance. thank you for your time. mr. roskam: dr. mcdermott. mr. mcdermott: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you letting me be and adjunct member of the committee. there's a recent article in the "wall street journal" talking about the conglomeration or the merging of health care providers. insurance companies. and they are talking about what's happening in a variety of markets around the united states. and i -- in talking about antitrust questions. and the whole question our fraud laws are based up to this point, on a fee for service system. are really designed to deal with the fee-for-services. now we have managed care and all these things going on. i would like to hear you talk

about where you think health care is going in terms of the mergers in these states where you're going to have -- if the free enterprise system is based on competition, it means you have to have more than one or maybe more than two to have anything that could be called real competition. if it's just two gorillas dividing up the pie in the state of whatever, it becomes not very competitive. so i'm interested in hearing your anticipation of where you think this scheme of affordable care act is going to go in the future. anybody can pile in on. commissioner redmer: i think your instincts are correct. mergers and reduction of the number of carriers in and of itself is bad for the consumer and it's probably bad for providers as well as the larger

entities can extract greater concessions from the providers. another observation, though, in addition to that is there are a number of provisions of the affordable care act that are encouraging and resulting in these hospital-owned provider organizations where physicians are becoming employed by hospitals. and i don't know about your states, but i can tell you in maryland that market has come and gone a couple of times in the last 30 years. and at least in maryland these hospitals really haven't shown a lot of talent in running efficiently and cost-effectively physician practices. so i'm concerned that that's going to lead to greater inefficientcy and greater costs in the long -- efficiency and greater costs in the long term. mr. mcdermott: one of the things that happens if you buy a

doctor's practice and you see patients in your practice and now you're seeing them in the hospital. the hospital charges a facility fee of some sort which jacks up the price. people are very surprised i got over here for $30 and i'm now getting it for $75 having it done the same thing. commissioner redmer: there's some of that. we are also seeing hospital-owned physician practices that are outside of the hospital setting. sometimes you just see the changing of the sign and they are community based and outside the hospital. but they are not necessarily more efficient nor cost-effective than an individual practice. commissioner mcpeak: i would agree your instinct are correct that we are going to see continued consolidation on behalf of health insurers and providers. in a certain sense, while we all need to be concerned from

antitrust issues, it makes a bit of sense from the insurers' standpoint, they are looking to consolidate and gain efficiency in administration and gain provider networks. now, on the consumer side, when the a.c.a. limits the amount of areas upon which an insurer can compete because all insurers have to offer products on the essential health benefits platform have to offer metallics on certain actuarial value percentages and amounts, the consumers appreciate that because it's transparency and need to compare policies. insurers don't have much to compete on except for provider networks administrative efficiencies, and anything else that they can distinguish themselves, they can no longer designate products and compete on that basis. the a.c.a. in itself limits some of those areas of competition that i think are leading to the consolidations we are witnessing.

commissioner kreidler: mr. mcdermott, i don't know we can contribute what we are seeing to the health care environment to the affordable care act. particularly in the case of providers, that trend was well under way before the affordable care act. my concern is is they are now starting to see it with the insurers, which may be more a reaction to providers doing it. hospitals are bilinge outpatient clinics as you point out they can charge higher rates. it means physicians, when i took office in the year 2001, most of them were not employees. now you see a very large percentage of physicians who are employees because their clinics they sold their clinic to the hospital or they are required by the hospital and now salaried. i worry about that. i also worry about what happens with the consolidation among insurers. i think that's something that as regulateors we'll have a mutual

concern about to make sure we maintain the viability of the health insurance market whether it's the providers or the insurers themselves. miss roskam: mrs. noem. mrs. noem: i want to thank you for mentioning my home state in your opening comments. we do chase face unique challenges in south dakota with one of our largest insurance companies recently announcing some of the increases to premiums up to 51% with an average of 42%. that is a lot for anyone to try to deal with in one calendar year much less try to continue to insure their family and make sure they are making the best decisions. my question wanted to cover specifically was if the affordable care act is requiring individuals and families to purchase coverage that they don't need. this is one of the challenges that we have seen and possibly has driven up costs in line with that as well. dr. chandler, i know that you

before in this hearing described why premiums are increasing. could you just restate for me if you believe that obamacare was meant to address health care costs and what it was, especially considering some of the testimony of mr. kreidler earlier, i want to have it clarified what obamacare was meant to do with health care costs. what was the intention of the act and how was it to impact health care costs for americans? mr. chandler: i would say the problem is that obamacare, the affordable care act, conceptualized wrongly the problem as one within the insurance industry rather than a problem primarily located within health care itself as fed back to by insurance. so while it attempted to deal with insurance i believe unsuccessfully by and large, it really failed with one exception i can talk about, to address the

major problem which is cost increases for medicine. more procedures, more costly procedures as one of the gentlemen mentioned, higher pharmaceutical drug prices. so the one exception i would say is the creation of accountable care organizations which may or may not reduce costs. mrs. noem: by and large the act has gradually increased the burdens on americans you believe since it's been enacted. mr. chandler: i do. mrs. noem: ms. mcpeak, you said it changes requirements in health care plans. commissioner mcpeak: i alluded to those a moment ago. the essential health benefits platform i think does require citizens to purchase coverages they might not necessarily need and wouldn't choose to purchase on their own. what we hear frequently in tennessee is i am a 27-year-old male. i don't want maternity coverage. i have to have a plan that includes something like that. so i do think the inability to

tailor products to the needs of your individual consumers has been affected by the affordable care act. the insurers can no longer tailor those plans to the distinct segment of the populations they are trying to soy. mrs. noem: could i buy a policy with fewer benefits? commissioner mcpeak: not unless it was compliant with the seengs health benefits. you can modify your cost sharing and your deductible amount. you can limit the providers that you would agree to see under the plan. the basic benefits have to be standized under the -- standardized. mrs. noem: the federal government is requiring my constituents to buy benefits they may or may not want at a higher cost to them? commissioner mcpeak: we hear that from our own citizens in tennessee, yes. mrs. noem: we have talked to many individuals and families across my state and across the country. i would be remiss if i didn't mention that rate hikes for small businesses as well. i'm talking about the small group market. the law completely upsets the

traditional small group market. lumping midsized business was small businesses. this definition change would have huge impact. in fact studies from the agency for health care research and quality estimates that 22,000 south dakota employees and their dependents will receive cancellation notices. most will see an average premium increase of 18%. so for obama administration bureaucrats here in washington, these 22,000 south dakotans are not just points on a graph. they are people that will be impacted. it's their real lives. with that, mr. chairman, i wanted to draw light to that. thank you for holding this hearing. i yield back. miss roskam: mrs. black fromtown tfpblet mrs. black: thank you again for allowing me to be here as a guest and have an opportunity to be able to ask questions. thank you for bringing this very critical topic before the public so that those that are listening to this know that we do care about either the lack of care or the cost for them to get care. i also want to say, mr. lewis, you are absolutely a giant in

the civil rights movement and it is such an honor to serve with you and get to know you personally. i will get you my book so you can sign it nor me as well. miss mcpeak, i want to thank you again for being here. you have in your testimony that there is a consistent uncertainty on the part of the obama administration in the a.c.a.'s implementation. i can say that we have seen so many changes that the congressional budget office, the c.b.o., has now said they are no longer able to even score the changes that have taken place. but most recently there was a change that was released in the guidance, of the market withdrawal. and according to the guidance insurance company chooses to leave a service area or if they change the type of product that they are offering from, for instance, a p.p.o. to an e.p.o., then the company is excluded from operating in that market for five years. the guidance was apparently issued after all the plans had

filed their rates. with the department of insurance. and meaning that it was too late for any of these carriers to revise any of those filings in response to what this guidance was. can you elaborate why this guidance would potentially disrupt the market in tennessee? commissioner mcpeak: certainly. i do have a very specific information about that particular ghideance in my written testimony as well because it was distinct challenge for us in tennessee. as you mingsed, the carriers had already filed their service areas and the rates for 2016 when the guidance was issued. we have eight different service areas in tennessee and the guidance suggested that leaving one service area was going to be considered a market withdrawal and the carrier would be prohibited for five years from selling insurance in the state oftown tfpblet also a change in the plan. so moving from a p.p.o. to an e.p.o. plan was considered a market withdrawal. so insurers filed the rates. didn't have any idea this interpretation was outstanding. and then we received the

guidance from h.h.s. in this regard. and for tennessee, that means that we would have lost five of our carriers for 2016 because of this guidance. we were very, very concerned. we had a lot of conversations with h.h.s. and finally h.h.s. agreed that they would only implement this guidance for 2017 and beyond. still going to be an issue going forward. >> it's a very important development you highlighted, representative black. and i would urge the congress to take look at two things. mr. chandler: first, is that guidance actually within the scope of the affordable care act. this is traditionally an area of state regulation. and i really wonder what provision in the a.c.a. authorizes it. the second thing i would look at is whether the ferguson act prohibits this sort of federal interference in an area of traditional state regulation.

so even putting the with us come of the provision aside, i actually think there is a serious question that ought to be looked into and for which once there will be standing about, about the legality of this proposal. this guidance. mrs. black: i have a very brief period of time. million redmer, did you want to reply? no. mr. kreidler. commissioner kreidler: i agree as regulators we found it a difficult part on h.h.s. and how they apply t the real question is, is this one where h.h.s. sees the problem and the problem would be that if you come in with a new plan you can totally avoid showing your rates as going up. precipitously. i think all members of congress certainly the public wants to know that information. you can't use it as a way of obfuscating significant rate increases. make sure it's transparent.

the only tool that's available to h.h.s. is this draconian steps they have taken. it is obviously one where maybe this is where you could get unanimity to amend the affordable care act in congress so that they have a tool that is much more sensitive rather than saying you're out of business for five he years. which is the only -- for five years which is the only option they have. it was inappropriate to try to do it the way they were. mrs. black: i yield back. mr. roskam: mr. smith of nebraska. mr. smith: thank you for allowing me to joint committee today. i appreciate our panel today. i wish we had more time because i think we are covering some very important topics. i'm concerned about the consumer operated and/orented plans. it may be no surprise to you, from tennessee, that being from nebraska we have had some issues

. to date h.h.s. has awarded or reported $2 billion in federal loans to establish these plans. i have asked h.h.s. some questions and i await the answers even still. co-opportunity in nebraska and iowa served over 100,000 individuals. and they were ceded by the state of iowa after one year and since been liquidated. and people who were on these plans have been left confused, understandably, and frustrated as well. once again being forced to look for other insurance. some wean lost their plans they were told they could keep. that's why they went to co-opportunity and yet lost that as well. tennessee community health alliance, obviously serves some folks there. it's my understanding that there have been some troubling signs and actual -- enrollment was suspended is that accurate? it was suspended when? commissioner mcpeak: that was suspended in the middle of january of this year. mr. smith: ok. i appreciate your work on the issue.

i know that these are difficult things to manage. and to deal with. my understanding was that the state of iowa wanted to suspend enrollment but we are told they could not suspend and were forced to still offer qualified so-called qualified health plan. can you walk me through the process that tennessee engaged in to be able to suspend the enrollment? commissioner mcpeak: certainly. thank you for the question. it was a very difficult time for us because we were first approached by community health alliance that has been witnessing their enrollment increase substantially during the open enrollment period. of course, middle of january was still during the open enrollment period. we did a quick examination. we shared their concern. we considered the co-opt to be at financial capacity. a few triggers in our state statute for financial hazardous condition has been met. we notified h.h.s. i will tell you our interaction

was not as efficient as we had hoped at that point with h.h.s. they certainly had a differing opinion about the financial stability of the company. i took a very conservative approach, i think, because iowa and nebraska experience had something occurred with the co-op, it would be my responsibility to take receivership action or liquidation or seizure of the company. we were not comfortable with the level of enrollment. there was a tremendous amount of back and forth. eventually it did take about a week's time for h.h.s. to agree to suspend the enrollment. but even that small victory, as i mentioned in my comments, was the right decision for tennessee, has been problematic for our tennessee residents because our residents that had a plan with community health alliance had extreme difficulty when h.h.s. froze the enrollment and suspended them from the exchange. there was no ability to add a child that was born or adopted

or any other qualifying event because in the mind of the federally facilitated marketplace, the plan ceased to exist. all of those changes had to be performed manually. and it has not gone smoothly. mr. smith: very interesting. were you aware of iowa's request to suspend enrollment? commissioner mcpeak: i was not aware of the request to suspend before the seizure occurred. i knew it was possible to stop enrollment and essentially turn off the exchange enrollees, but in my opinion, in iowa and nebraska only after the seizure was ordered. mr. smith: you have a pretty good feeling about where the community health alliance stands today? commissioner mcpeak: at our request community health alliance has drawn down the full a start up loans from the federal government. we have a financial examine under way so we know exactly where they stand. we provided some hopeful, thought helpful information about administrative expenses to the company.

and the rate request for 2016 that they have filed is over 32% increase. i don't know that that's going to be sufficient to make the company sustainable and to remove the freeze for the upcoming year. mr. smith: to the best of your knowledge, is it true that only one of the 22 plans nationwide did not have an operating offer for 2014? commissioner mcpeak:dy see a report that was consistent with that figure, yes, sir. mr. smith: would that maybe lead you to some concerns that maybe the loans calling them loans wouldn't be the most accurate description? commissioner mcpeak: i would agree, yes. mr. smith: i yield back. mr. roskam: thank you. let me just -- i've got just a question for each of you and mr. redmer i'll start with you because i know you have a hard stop at 12 noon. you have our permission to head out when you need to head out. in your written testimony, one of the things you said was that there's an insurer in your state

that's predicting their pool will be actually older next year. could you speak to that? that seems -- it's not a term of art, that seems -- that's a trend that's toxic isn't it? what's the ramification of that? commissioner redmer: that's true. that will obviously continue to drive up costs. something that we are concerned about. again, there's still a loft uncertainty as to what the effect of the increase penalty will be. and whether that's going to drive any younger folks into the marketplace. or the flip side is, the young folks will sit tight and remain uninsured. pay the pent. and only -- penalty. and only those that migrate into the pool will be those that were uninsured and now are sick which obviously will probably mean even a higher average age and increased morbidity. mr. roskam: it's a ramification of adverse selection. commissioner redmer: correct. mr. roskam: could you give us any insight in terms of

long-term trends you're seeing in tennessee as it relates other things, cadillac tax and so forth. how is this playing out for you? commissioner mcpeak: in tennessee right now we are hearing a tremendous amount of feedback from a large employers that are concerned about being assessed what has been described as a cadillac tax for having a high value health insurance plan available to their employees and executives. of particular concern, and i share this concern when i hear it from the employers representative black has probably heard the very same thing, the cost of on-site clinics for employers is being included in the value in the cost of that health plan high value health plan, for purposes of calculating the cadillac tax. and employers rather than -- that is a decision or guidance that is under way through the internal revenue service. employers instead of paying that cadillac tax are instead

choosing to close those on-site clinics. it's very troubling because reducing health care costs and certainly convenience to the employees and potentially a lack or reduced amount of the co-pay or cost sharing for attending -- seeking service at an on-site clinic benefits all ever us in reducing costs and providing care. including the cost of that clinic as a part of the high value health plan for purposes of cadillac tax is certainly problematic and we are hearing a great deal about that in tennessee. mr. roskam: mr. kreidler, i realize i have the been fit of having john lewis' book many copies around me. on page 178 of that book, mr. lewis points out that one of his phrases is put all your cards on the table and put them face up. when i read that i thought, wow, i have heard him say that. i was at a meeting in the back in that library behind us and we had the commissioner of the i.r.s. at the time, we have had several, but one of the

commissioners of the i.r.s. at the time, and mr. lewis, then chairman of this oversight subcommittee said, put all your cards on the table and put them face up. just saying, it would have been better if they had done that. they didn't. my cards face up are this. i participated in the white house health care summit. this was when the affordable care act was being debated. it was an event at the blair house. you may recall it. it was an all day long sort of thing. the president was there. and members of congress and so forth. one of the points i made to the president is contrary to one of the arguments that you're making, and i want to get just a little bit of a better sense from you about why you're making the argument. it has to do with medicaid expansion. one of the things -- i don't recall sort of chapter and verse about this interaction, but one of the points that i made at that summit was look, isn't medicaid expansion simply an

expansion of welfare? isn't medicaid a terribly broken system? if you have a terribly broken system, why would you make that a foundation upon which you built a whole health care reform movement? so a couple minutes ago you made the -- you said, look, one of the reasons it's working in washington state is because of medicaid expansion. that -- i think that's a problem. i think it's a problem long term. i'm from illinois. our medicaid system is really a mess. you have huge access issues on the one point, and you've got, ok medicaid is basically cost shifted in a lot of ways. i know it's split. but it's cost shifted on to the federal taxpayer. so isn't there a little bit of a cautionary tale in just medicare expansion as being part of this remedy? isn't that almost a structural

weakness to the affordable care act? commissioner kreidler: one of the things i find somewhat unique that we were witnessing because we have expands the the medicaid program is you're actually starting to drive the medicaid program closer to looking like what we see in the commercial market. and that means both on the issues related to the networks that they have, which tended to be much -- very different than what we saw in the commercial market. certainly as we all heard if you're in an elected position in t. luke at the kind of rates that medicaid offers to providers as being considerably lower than what it is in the commercial market. we are starting to see that driven together. i think -- it inevitably has to. you cannot have the medicaid market significantly underpricing what it offers to providers. and not see that in effect almost be one where the commercial market is having to subsidize the medicaid market.

public programs and the commercial market have to operate on a level playing field. we are seeing -- starting to see that driven together. i believe that the real driver here is the expansion of the medicaid program. before this time we had very little interaction with the medicaid program operated by the state. now we have routine meetings talking about networks. talking about rates and issues like that. i think it's having a beneficial effect that kind of goes outside of just what expansion itself would have been maybe the focus of the type of discussion. it's actually, i think, helping to make sure that more people are insured. you don't have this huge problem of uncompensated care happening which gets shifted to other payers. mr. roskam: any insight you have on your experience, would you or your staff share that with us. i think that would be helpful. thank you. mr. chandler, let's close out

with you. i thought that your insight as it relates to -- the way i put it down in my notes when you were talking was the affordable care act deals with a symptom but not the cause. symptom matically health insurance rates are spiraling, but it doesn't deal with health care costs. what insight do you have moving forward? if you could hit a reset button, how would you focus in? you heard my rhetorical answer to representative crowley when he was saying, what are we doing? are we nostalgic about the past? no. there's nobody that's defending the past. there's nobody that's celebrating about various structural weaknesses and so forth. if you had an opportunity to hit a reset buttom and -- button and focus in, how do you do, this where do you direct the congress

as it relates to dealing with health care costs, which as a foundational point, if you get that under control, you're well on your way to an fuel remedy. -- actual remedy. mr. chandler: the big point is there may be some temptation on the part of congress to regulate more, push it down push it down. that's unlikely to be effective. that is adding additional complexity to the system which we are already seeing is going to drive costs up. it is going to lead to more gaming behavior and more diversion ever resources into how to beat the federal government. what we have in health care is a unique situation in which the consumer is basically taken out of the equation and instead health care is mediated by insurers who may or may not have the best interests of the patient at heart. and who may not have an interest in trying to figure out creative ways using technology and other

means to drive down health care costs. so one of the things i would urge you to look at, and i note -- >> continue to watch this hearing online at c-span.org. the u.s. house gaveling in to begin debate on the e.p.a.'s power plant carbon emissions regulations. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer today will be offered by our guest chaplain, dr. shondra benu from the cultural and community center, seattle, washington. the chaplain: o lord by your will we are born in different nations, speak different languages and follow different religions and cultures. yet we are all your children and ever grateful for your love and protection.

eadvocate in us pious thoughts and feelings to shun all hatred and violence. and become worthy of your services. bless our future generations, bring the spirit of love, sacrifice and cooperation. guide us in following saints like one who proclaimed in hindy -- hindi, god is the master of all. inspire us, as your trustees to nourish and protect the world around us, to sustain all life. guide us along the ethical and holistic path of self-control, purity of purpose and dedication enshrined. o lord, bless this august assembly and this nation in performing its national and global responsibilities towards

furthering the cause of humanity. the speaker: 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 approved. . the speaker pro tempore: the pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright. mr. cartwright: thank you, mr. speaker. please join me as we pledge our allegiance. 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: without objection the gentleman from washington state, mr. mcdermott, is recognized for one minute. mr. mcdermott: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my privilege this morning to welcome our guest chaplain, dr. chandra. he deserves a great credit for

his earnest and humble leadership of the global movement which celebrates the teachings and ideals of the those respected of the ancient perfect masters and renowned for his teaches of compassion and acceptance. this year marks the 25th anniversary of the movement and i can't think of a time when the values of peace respect, and compassion are needed more here in our own country and in other parts of the world. his moving invocation this morning serves as a motivation to each of us gathered here to always remember what ultimately unites us far outweighs what divides us, regardless of language, culture, or creed. thank you for being here today. thank you for your exemplary leadership in the spirit of the teachings and sharing your

vision for a peaceful future. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will now entertain up to 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mchenry: thank you, mr. speaker. last thursday americans across the country awoke to the horrific news of nine lives ended in the hatred and senseless act of violence that occurred at charleston's a.m.e. church. the senseless act of violence shocked the country and left the carolinas in a high state of anxiety as the suspect remained on the run. fortunately, due to the vigilance and quick thinking of one of my constituents and the professional work of local law enforcement, the perpetrator of this heinous act was brought to quick justice. thursday morning debi dills spotted a suspect and his car

after having seen photos on the morning news. she quickly called 9-1-1 alerted local law enforcement to its whereabouts, and then the shelby police department took over. pursuing the suspect and arresting him. a little over 12 hours after the event occurred, the monster who committed this heinous act was in custody. i want to express my gratitude to ms. dills, the shelby police department and local law enforcement, and the entire cleveland downy community -- county community for their work in assisting in this arrest. their quick thinking and professional work brought this manhunt to a close and allowed all americans to begin the morning process for the nine innocent lives that were ended just a week ago. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman investigate for one minute. ms. kelly: thank you, mr. speaker.

i rise today -- they included a 17-year-old boy shot in the head, a 27-year-old man shot to death in his car, and a man who died shielding his mother from bullets fired outside of their room. in recent days, our media has been gripped by tragic displays of violence. charleston is what happens when racism and hate find the gun. charleston is yet another gut wrenching reminder that as leaders we can't stay silent on gun violence or racism. how many more deadly weekends will we allow on our watch? what will you do to stop the next newtown or -- new town or charleston? most porm, we need conversations meaningful conversations and action around racism both individual and systemic to truly have a safe and secure nation with equal treatment and opportunity for all. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, last week nine extraordinary men and women were killed at the bible study at historic a.m.e. church in my birthplace of charleston. i'm grateful for their memories. reverend coleman singleton, cynthia herd, tywanda sanders, ethel lance, reverend daniel simmons, reverend middleton doctor, along with pastor pinckney were all leaders of our community and their church. one served the youth as a high school track coach. one a lifelong librarian. one a recent college graduate with a bright future ahead of him. much served their church. each had a clear love of god and love for their fellow man

as followers of jesus christ. the lost of reverend senator pinckney has been personal as he was a fellow state legislator. i was honored to host the senator, his wife, and daughters when they visited the capitol a few years ago. he grew up in richland as a lifelong friend of my former chief of staff. the murderer tried to divide our citizens but he failed as south carolinians have unified in love, prayer, and respect. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise at this time to lodge my objection that this house is going to recess tomorrow without taking up the renewal of the exporte import

bank. -- export-import bank. this is a time when american businesspeople are doing everything they can think of to compete abroad. mr. cartwright: american manufacturers seeking to export our goods. this is an outfit that stands up for american exporting manufacturers. it supports 1.5 million american manufacturing jobs. good-paying family sustaining jobs. we can't recess without renewing the exports import bank. in my district alone 600 people are employed by companies that benefit materially from the ex-im bank. universal industrial gas in easton, floor tech in easton noble biomaterials in scranton, and copper head chemical company and others. we have to do the sensible thing and rue new -- renew this export-import bank it's as

plain as the nose on your face. as as true as the law of glavity. i yield back. -- gravity. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? sorry, the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in the wake of last week's devastating shooting in a church in charleston, south carolina. the killing of any human is a real tragedy. but to lose nine innocent people while they were in a bible study simply because of the color of their skin is heinous beyond words. on behalf of the people of southwest alabama, i want to share our condolences with the families of those who lost loved ones. mr. byrne: let me be very clear. in today's society, this kind of hate-based act and particularly hate-based on race

or ethnicity, is deplorable and unacceptable. we are one nation and there is no place in our country for racism. as a southerner but more importantly as an american, i feel as if there has been a death in my own family because these deaths were in my family. the family of all citizens in the united states of america. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. two years ago i stood on the steps of the supreme court as the discriminatory defense of marriage act was struck down. on a boughtful day in june, much like today i stood there with the words equal justice under the law inscribed on the top of the court and celebrated

a truly historic decision that finally after decades of injustice granted the right of lgbt americans the right to have their marriages recognized by the federal government. that day was even more important to me because i stood on those steps with many of my close friends and many of my staff whom i deeply care about many of whom for the first time had their basic humanity recognized by the highest court if the land. so i'm looking forward again in the next coming days to stand on those same steps as the supreme court hopefully rules that every american has the constitutional right to marry the person they love. i'm optimistic and hopeful that marriage equality will soon be the law of the land as the vice chair of the lgbt equality caucus, i'm committed to continue to providing federal policies that recognizes the rights of all americans regardless of their sexual

orientation or gender identity. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, you know it's no secret that i'm opposed to obamacare. i have been since day one. it's a bad law that's hurting americans. it's hurting americans with higher costs. it's hurting americans because they lost doctors they liked. it's hurting seniors because it will ration our health care. when obamacare created the independent payment advisory board, it put 15 un-elected bureaucrats in charge of what payments medicare seniors could get for their treatments. many people have referred to this board as the death panel. that's wrong. i have been working to repeal this board and yesterday i was proud to stand up for our seniors by voting for the

protecting seniors access to medicare act which would do just that. the senate needs to pass this commonsense bill now. and we need to keep working to see that obamacare is fully and permanently repealed. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate the kristening and launch of the s.s. gabriel giffords, the anyway very's -- the navy's 10th literal combat ship. my friend could teach us all a thing or two about honor, courage and commitment. mr. sires: on january 8 representative giffords was shot in tucson, arizona, while meeting many of her combinlt -- constituents and has been in incredible recovery. she still works tirelessly to serve people in arizona and

citizens all across the country. i am pleased that the u.s. navy kristened the u.s.s. gabriel giffords -- gabry he will giffords. dr. biden noted the former representative gifford represents some of the qualities of the play? s embodies and i couldn't agree more. as this vessel travels the world, i hope it will inspire patriotism and resilience. i am proud that the navy has chosen to honor former representative giffords in this prestigious manner and i'm encouraged by the work she's doing advocating for safe and responsible gun ownership. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize veterans suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder.

the month of june is the veterans affairs posttraumatic stress disorder awareness month. mr. dold: unacceptably we lose 22 heros a day to mental illness, often connected to ptsd trauma. we must take steps to reduce this horrible statistic. even someone too many. mr. speaker, 22 is a disgrace to everything these heroes fought for. posttraumatic stress disorder is widespread, affecting one in five solders where they return home from war. only 40% of those veterans afflicted will seek treatment. leaving the remaining 3 fifth unaware of their -- 3/5 unof aware of their condition -- unaware of their condition and often thinking seeking help to curt their career. our service men and women deserve the best treatment and so i pledge continue supporting initiatives that put our troops and veterans first. i'm honored to stand here today to raise awareness about posttraumatic stress disorder and encourage others to join the fight to combat this terrible disease.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor juneteenth, a celebration that commemorates the ultimate implementation of the emancipation proclamation. 150 years ago on june 19, 165 union soldiers marched into galveston, texas with the news that the civil war had ended and the enslaved were now free. 2 1/2 years after president lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation. juneteenth is the celebration of african-american freedom and it is also serve -- and it also serves as a reminder of the american idea, one of freedom independence and liberty. this year i had the honor to join in the 40th annual buffalo juneteenth festival, the third largest in the nation. people of all backgrounds partake in cultural activities that promote and preserve the

african-american heritage. juneteenth has established its position as an important tradition in western new york and in the neighborhoods, towns and cities throughout america. mr. speaker, i am honored to recognize juneteenth, to celebrate our nation's rich african-american history and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the y wca on its 100th anniversary. the wy -- the ywca seeks to eliminate racism empower women, promote peace, justice and freedom and dignity for all. in the 1980's it was converted from a social organization to one based on service. since then it has been the home of mckeon county's first

program to provide services to victims of domestic and sexual assault. during its centennial year, it expanded its program to include services and shelters for the homeless mentally ill and intellectually disabled. meals on wheels and food pantry are among the or new amenities offered by the -- are among the other new amenities offered by the organization. i thank the ywca of bradford for its dedicated service to the citizens of mckeon county pennsylvania. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i rise to ask unanimous consent to address the body for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, last week we witnessed an act of pure hatred and evil in charleston, south carolina. this is a time to mourn the victims, to pray for their families for the community to heal and for congress to take action against unchecked and widespread gun violence.

30-plus people were killed every day by someone using a gun. mr. thompson: mass shootings are becoming almost commonplace and yet we continue to do nothing. no legislation will stop every tragedy but passing commonsense gun laws will stop some. we need to pass background checks. it's our first line of defense against criminals and the dangerously mentally ill getting guns. we don't know what laws could have prevented the shooting in charleston but we do know that background checks help keep guns from dangerous people and that saves lives. the republican leadership has a better idea to cut down on gun violence, let's see it. if not, let's bring commonsense, bipartisan reforms like my bill to expand criminal background checks up for a vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: thank you mr.

speaker. it's time we recognize the important role blue star mothers play in supporting our troops and passing my bipartisan resolution, which calls for august, 2015, to be designated as blue star mothers of america month. the blue star mothers have been tireless advocates for our troops and have assisted them by providing hundreds of thousands of care packages, sending letters to troops stationed overseas and hosting thousands of events and ceremonies. blue star mothers of america is a nonprofit nonpartisan service organization that was chartered by congress in 1960 and has currently over 11,000 members in 42 states. women who have a son or daughter who is currently serving or previously served in the u.s. armed forces are eligible for membership. many of these blue star mothers have seen their loved ones sent into harm's way. mr. speaker i urge all my colleagues to stand with the blue star mothers of america and support house resolution 140. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition?

without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker there is just one more congressional work day before the charter for the u.s. export-import bank expires. if republicans allow it to expire thousands of americans will lose their jobs and many small business owners will be hurt. people like steve willburn. steve's a pretty amazing guy. he's a form marine wounded in vietnam. owns a small business and he's a republican. today steve runs a biomass energy company and thanks to the help of our ex-im bank, he had a tentative $300 million deal with the philippines. but they sent him a letter saying that if the ex-im bank goes under, so does his deal. steve won't get the contract and instead it will go to a south korean firm using a south

korean export bank. perhaps our identify willingly driven friends on the -- our ideologically driven friends on the right can explain to steve and his employees, who are going to lose their jobs, why this is a good thing. we should join together let's pass the ex-im bank for american jobs. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in support of minnesota's darey industry and national dairy month. mr. emmer: in my home state, dairy is one of our largest agricultural products. we are run of the nation's top dairy producing states and stearns county, in my district, is the top dairy producing county in minnesota. dairy farming is more than a profession. it's a way of life for many minnesota families. i've had the privilege of

visiting dairy farms across my district and i've seen firsthand the hard work these men and women do day in and day out. from waking up before sunrise to milk their cows, to breeding, delivering and raising newborn calfs it's just another day at the office for these folks. i'm proud of minnesota's dairy industry and hope every american will take some time to grab an ice cream cone and appreciate the hard work that goes into making some of our nation's favorite food. happy dairy month to all of our hardworking farmers. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. i rise with my colleague who spoke before about the export-import bank. it does this not by competing with private sector lenders, by partnering with them, the bank fills gaps and provides loans

that the private sector folks are unwilling or most often unable to and it costs the taxpayers nothing. in fact, since 1990, it's generated $7 billion in deficit reduction. mr. walz: the export-import bank is overwhelmingly supported by democrats and republicans. presidents from eisenhower to reagan bush, clinton and president obama have all been onboard. so it sure seems like a commonsense measure, right? i think we've all learned in this congress that a small, vocal extremist minority can derail the most bipartisan measures. unfortunately that's exactly what's happening. i ask speaker boehner, don't allow that small vocal extreme minority to derail a very good program. that's not the way our government's supposed to work. southern minnesota is working too. businesses all rely on the bank and the last thing they need is for congress to get in the way and stop the growth and put their prosperity at risk. speaker boehner, bring it to the floor and let us vote. if it passes, america's better off. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the university of arkansas razor back basketball team on their successful 2015 season. after winning their regional and superregional play, they made it to the college world series in oak what, nebraska. this -- in omaha, nebraska. this was their fourth trip to the series under the leadership of coach dave vanhorn. while their season may have come to an end last week, they still have many reasons for which to be proud. on april 4 of this year, the team was idling at 50%. and postseason play seemed doubtful. then they embarked on one of the greatest turnarounds in the program's history. mr. hill: winning 25 of their next 35 games, to finish the season with an impressive 40-25 record. with their seemingly limitless enthusiasm and spirit, they

represented themselves on the national stage with the determination and dedication that made all arkansan and all arkansas alums proud. congratulations on a great season and i look forward to your continued success. go hogs, go. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the other day i was out in my community and was introduced to a young man of boy scout troop 447. he and i got in a conversation and he discovered i was on the space subcommittee. and he asked if he could write me a letter. one of his requirements to get a boy scout merit badge. the other day my staff passed me his letter and i want to read from that. congressman, you told me you're on the committee that looks into why we aren't going to space right now. berber i hope you can continue -- mr. bera: i hope you can convince them to try again. there's so much more for us to discover. i hope you tell the other

people on the committee that kids like me hope they won't let the space program end before we grow up and get to be part of it. we might be missing out on something really fun and important. mr. speaker let's dream again. let's explore. let's invest in the research that is going to take us to the next generation, to mars, and all the technologies that come with it. let's not let this generation down. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize june as alzheimer's awareness month. in 2014 approximately 270,000 pennsylvania seniors were diagnosed and living with alzheimer's disease. just a little over a decade from now in 2025, this number's expected to jump by nearly 18% to 320000. according to the alzheimer's

association, the disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the united states and is the only cause of death in the top 10 that cannot be prevented, cured or slowed. as someone who watched this -- his grandmother suffer and ultimately pass away from this horrible disease, i can say that this is a startling trend that needs to be reversed. starting now. that's why i'm proud to have joined the congressional task force on alzheimer's disease and i am committed to support greater coordination and cooperation among patients, care givers and health care providers. mr. costello: together we can improve the long-term health of those diagnosed and increase our efforts on combating alzheimer's, preventing it curing it, slowing the disease. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? . the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to mark june as immigrant heritage month. i'm also proud to represent and

support representative linda sanchez's house resolution to recognize june as hispanic heritage month. in the closing days of immigrant heritage month we celebrate our country being fueled by immigrants from around the world and how america and her immigrants who have built our country linked and shared in a very productive history. mr. veasey: members of my own staff, people that serve in the military, in our armed services police forces, and all sorts of jobs around our country help add to the history that make america great. each weaves their own family's experience and makes our family stronger. the entrepreneurship of influence, strength and resilience unifies all of us and resonates beyond the end of this month. today and every day i remain committed to fighting for immigrant families in my district and nationwide.

mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of the permanent re-authorization of the lands and water conservation fund. an important program that benefits every american. lwcf was founded 50 years ago to utilize revenue from energy projects to fund important conservation efforts. in total, it has conserved approximately seven million acres of land and water resources including mountains forrests waterways, nature trails, and other aspects of our environment. in new york's 19th district, for example, several different projects have benefited, including the rens letter -- rennesslear project. unfortunately this rit cal program expires in about 100

days, potentially jeopardizing important funding for many local communities, state, and private organizations. we simply can't let that happen. we must permanently re-authorize this important program and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gallego: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of affirming marriage equality and providing equal protection guarantees to lgbt americans throughout our country. mr. speaker, the overwhelming majority of the american public supports marriage equality. they know that same-sex couples should have access to dignity and security that only marriage can provide. in 37 states in our nation, this is already a reality. today more 70% of the population live in

jurisdictions where they are free to marry who they love. at this very moment marriage discrimination is still openly practiced in 13 states, taking away the securities and protections, financial and otherwise, that many americans have but not lgbt americans. make no mistake, mr. speaker, the failure or prohibition to recognize and allow same-sex couples to marry is discrimination. the fight for marriage equality for lgbt brothers and sisters is one of the great civil rights battles of our lifetime. and it continues to achieve full equality under the law for all. a positive supreme court decision on marriage is a step towards ending discrimination that too many american families are suffering because of where they live and who they love. mr. speaker, it is the year 2015, it is well past time we end the discrimination against our lgbt americans. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise to seek

unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. for too long americans all across the nation have felt the devastating effects of the president's health care plan, also known as obamacare. one of its many harmful provisions is the job killing medical device tax, a $30 billion tax hike on medical device manufacturers that has tripled growth in this industry -- crippled growth in this industry to pay for this flawed program. i'm proud to be an original co-sponsor of h.r. 160 to protect the medical innovation act which eliminates the 2.3% excise tax imposed on the sale of medical devices by obamacare and passed in the house on a bipartisan basis. mr. allen: as we continue working for full repeal of

obamacare, this is a step in the right direction to eliminate this job killing provision in obamacare that hinders our economy, hurts patients' access to quality care. i encourage my colleagues in the senate to quickly pass this legislation to spur innovation and bring down health care costs. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the victims of the tragic shooting last week in charleston. reverend klemm men at this pinkney, to payne middleton doctor, daniel simmons, susie jackson, ethel lance, and cynthia herd. my thoughts and prayers are with their families and i congratulate south carolina for trying to lower the confederate flat. it's the right thing to do. but we don't stop these tragedies by retiring our

racist relic. we stop them by fixing our broken gun laws. mr. deutch: gun laws failing to keep guns out of the hands of those who seek to do us harm. to fix them, congress must act, but what's our response been? silence. silence after aurora. silence after tucson. silence after newtown. silence after daily acts of gun violence. mr. speaker, america should never accept all this mourning, all this heartbreak, and all this gun violence and shame on this united states congress if we remain silent after charleston. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. tonight the house will vote on the ratepayer protection act which is a response to the e.p.a.'s proposed 111-d rule. the divide between he what's

right for job creation and the policies coming out of this administration continues to grow deeper. i have heard from countless farmers, manufacturers, businesses, and families who are concerned with the e.p.a.'s overreach and what it means for them. in hudson: in february, administrator mccarthy asserted that no e.p.a. rule has ever cost a single job. this is absolutely absurd and demonstrates a myoa that is stunning. outside of the national debt, the e.p.a. in general and this proposed rule specifically represents one of the greatest threats to economic prosperity in this nation. our economy is recovering and many folks are just getting back on their feet. but with this proposed rule and many others, the e.p.a. wants to rip the rug right out from under the american people. families, businesses depend on access to affordable and reliable electricity. e.p.a.'s proposed 111-d rule for existing power plants will increase rates by nearly 14%. north carolina has already reduced co-2 power plant emissions by 21% without federal regulations.

and so for this and many reasons i urge my colleagues to support the rate paper protection act. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker i request one minute to address the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this is one of the things that is actually very difficult to explain to my constituents and to most people who don't follow the ins and outs of washington. i was at a plant in my district in northeast philadelphiale just two days ago along with senator casey. this company augusta wesland, does excellent work and employs americans right there in philadelphia and in pennsylvania. it benefits from something

called the export-import bank. something that has existed for 81 years and has been supported by every single president both democrat and republican. it is a program that supports 164,000 jobs a year and just last year created a $675 million surplus for the taxpayers. mr. boyle: we have a program that helps business. creates jobs. and actually gives to taxpayers rather than taking from them. so of course congress is to allow this program to expire. it makes absolutely no sense. it is time for the leadership of this house to listen to the will of the vast majority and not the very vocal extreme minority. let us -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. with that for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cleaver: mr. speaker, i believe that a prayer has been answered. on may 15 i took to this very podium and prayed for the people of nay paul. the prayer -- nepal. the prayer was we would accord them temporary status if they were living in the united states. mr. green: i'm proud to say that homeland security has now issued a mandate for 180 day registration period 18-month temporary protective status. i'm grateful to congressman crowley and congressman message for the letter they sent to homeland security making this request i was proud to sign on. i thank the president of the united states for allowing this to happen. and, mr. speaker, i thank god that the people of nepal will have an opportunity to stay in this country and not go back to the devastation that they have suffed in nepal as a result of the earthquakes that took place there.

god bless you, mr. speaker. god bless the united states of america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. wilson: mr. speaker, today is wear red wednesday to bring back our girls. the news monday of boca had a ram using two girls as suicide bombers to kill 30 people in northern nigeria reminds us yet again why we must act now. please co-sponsor house resolution 147 as amended to help the nigerian government bring back our girls and defeat boko haram. tomorrow, congressman smith, chairman of the subcommittee on africa and i will host a classified briefing from the state department. i invite you to join in this

briefing on the future of nigeria. today i welcome 38 young girls from congress for girls. plose join me on the capitol steps after the first series of votes to take a group picture with these wonderful little girls. they are from all over the country. they are helping in the fight against boko haram and they are in the gallery today. don't forget to tweet, tweet, tweet. hashtag bring back our girls. tweet, tweet, tweet, hashtag, join rep wilson. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the clerk will report the resolution. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. burgess: by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 333 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 44, house resolution 333, resolved, that a, at any

time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18 declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 2822, making appropriations for the department of the interior, environment, and related agencies -- agencies for the fear ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and clold by the -- controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21 are waived. b, during consideration of the bill for amendment, one each amendment other than amendments

provided for in paragraph 2 shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment except as provided in paragraph 2. 2, no pro forma amendment shall be in order except as the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate. and three, the chair of the committee of the whole may accord priority and recognition on the basis of whether the member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule 18, amendments so printed shall be considered as read. . when the committee rises and reports the bill back to the house with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or

without instructions. section 2 at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 2042, to allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units before requiring compliance with such rule. and to allow states to protect households and businesses from significant adverse effects on electricity ratepayers or reliability. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the energy and energy and -- member of the committee

on energy and commerce it. shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-20. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the

house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill an amendments thereto to final passage without intervenings moge -- intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 3, it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment during the month of july, 2015. section 4 on any legislative day during the period from june 26, 2015, through july 6, 2015 a, the journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved. and b the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article 1 of the constitution to be

announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment. section 5 the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of the chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 4 of this resolution, as though under clause 8-a of rule 1. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. burgess: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. burgess: during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, house resolution 333 provides for a rule to consider important bills that deal with our environment. the first, h.r. 2822, the

interior and environmental protection agency appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016, and the second, h.r. 2042 the ratepayer protection act of 2015. each bill will be provided the standard one hour of debate equal request divided between the majority and the minority -- equallyy divided by -- yeal request divided -- equally divided between the majority and the minority. as with nearly all regular order appropriations bills that have come to the floor under the republican leadership the interior e.p.a. bill will be considered under a modified open rule, allowing every member, every member of this body the opportunity to come to the floor and offer amendments to the bill that comply with the house budget rules. h.r. 2042, the ratepayer protection act, is given a

structured rule under the resolution before us today, with the rules committee making in order five of the eight amendments offered during consideration of the bill last evening. of the amendments made in order one is bipartisan, three were offered by democrats, and one was offered by a republican. h.r. 2822, the department of interior, environment and related agencies appropriations act for fiscal year 2016, provides funding for both the department of the interior and the environmental protection agency. this bill provides funding for many of the national parks and recreation alpha silts throughout the united states -- recreational facilities throughout the united states. the bill includes over $30 billion for base funding, decreasing the top line level by $246 million below fiscal year 2015 and cutting $3 billion from the president's budget request. this spending reduction is necessary to rein in an

out-of-control environmental protection agency that is moving at break-neck speed to regulate every aspect of our economy. following the failure of the house and senate democrats to get the disastrous waxman-markey cap and trade legislation to president obama's dess income 2009, lisa jackson -- desk in 2009 lisa jackson and mrs. mccarthy have moved forward with regulatory regimes to go around congress, to regulate carbon after the american people explicitly rose up and said do not do this. the energy and commerce committee has held countless hearings and markups to address the out-of-control efforts by the environmental protection agency, and has taken over the past few years the push -- to push president obama's harmful environmental policies onto a pop us will that has re-- populous that has rejected those same policies at the ballot box from carbon dioxide

to ozone to every -- box. from carbon dioxide, to ozone, to every pond in america, the environmental protection agency will not rest until it has regulatory control every every aspect of every life -- over every aspect of every life in america. the appropriations bill before us is an important step toward reining in such a power-hungry agency. the bill contains prohibitions on the department of interior's attempts to regulate hydraulic fracturing. a process that president obama's own environmental protection agency recently stated has not resulted in any significant environmental or health harms. it includes a provision preventing the environmental protection agency from proposing new ozone standards under at least 85% until -- until at least 85% of the country is able to meet current standards, which would seem to be a reasonable request. it prohibblets the environmental protection agency -- prohibits the environmental protection agency from moving forward with new greenhouse gas

regulations, regulations that the american people have never supported. and it prohibits the e.p.a. e.p.a. -- the e.p.a. from moving forward with regulating every stream and pond in the country, an issue that the supreme court has rejected and that farmers and landowners all across america have risen up in one -- as one in their opposition. even more than the funding levels in this bill, passing the house interior appropriations bill will keep the environmental protection agency from doing further damage to the united states economy than has already been done by this administration. we were greeted with the news that the economy contracted. that is not the direct that -- direction that we need to go. the second bill contained in today's rule is h.r. 2042, the ratepayer protection act of 2014, which does address the environmental protection agency's job killing carbon

rules on existing power plants. the bill allows for judicial review of any final rule pertaining to greenhouse gas emissions before requiring compliance with such a rule and allows states to protect households and businesses from significant adverse effects on electricity ratepayers reliability. this seems like a reasonable ask. that the e.p.a.'s own rule, which we know will be litigated anyway, not go into effect until the courts have had a final stay -- say on whether or not the environmental protection agency actually followed the law. the environmental protection agency's proposed regulation on greenhouse gases, a regulation that the democrats couldn't achieve through legislation places different limits on different states. allowing the environmental protection agency to pick winners and losers in the carbon wars. if a state does not comply with the strict guidelines that the

environmental protection agency sets out for its electricity market then the e.p.a. will force its own federal plan on the state, driving up the cost to ratepayers exponentially. the e.p.a.'s own estimates of this rule, just the rule, without any mention of the other disastrously expensive rules that it is currently proposing, such as the ozone regulations suggests that the carbon rule for existing power plants will impose annual costs of $5.5 billion to $7.5 billion by 2020 and almost $9 billion by 2030. all costs all of those costs will be passed on to every american who pays an electricity bill. of course as we've seen in previous rules, the environmental protection agency consistently underestimates the cost of its rules to hide the ball from the american people about the true damage that is being proposed by the agency. outside estimates put the cost of this one regulation at

upwards of well over $360 billion to almost $500 billion between 2017 and 2031. that level of harm to the united states economy is insane. after seeing such a slow recovery under the current were the. but -- current president. but it is exactly what mrs. mccarthy is proposing. stake holders have submitted thousands of comments on this rule explaining how difficult -- stakeholders have submitted thousands of comments on this rule explaining how difficult it will be, but those pleas appear to have hit a dead end. the environmental protection agency is moving forward with these rules and this bill, this bill before us, presents one of the great opportunities to slow them down before irreversible damage is done to the economy. mr. speaker, the house is moving forward with important legislation today to make the government more accountable. i look forward to both bills having a full debate on the house floor after the passage of today's rule. mr. speaker, i'll reserve the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado -- the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. if we defeat the previous question i will offer an amendment to the rule to allow for consideration of legislation that will re-authorize the export-import bank for seven years. that allows american businesses to compete in global markets and supports hundreds of thousands of jobs. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: mr. speaker i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: so we have one legislative day until the expiration of the export-import bank's authorization. and we're going to get to talk about this e.p.a. rule in a few minutes. but there are many members on my side of the aisle who want to bring forward in the form of a previous question the only procedural way that we can advance this important piece of legislation to the floor before the house goes home in july, to

re-authorize the export-import bank. re-authorization of the export-import bank would strengthen our nation's economy, it would provide stability and certainty for american businesses. the export-import bank assists tens of thousands of small and medium sized businesses throughout the country. in fact, nearly 90% of export-import's transactions are with small businesses and the bank directly supports 164,000 private sector jobs at over 3,300 companies. in august i was honored to receive a visit from export -import bank president who came to my district to highlight the kinds of jobs and companies that export-import really benefits and discuss ways that it can work together with some of our local colorado small businesses. together we visited boulder-based technologies which was named the export-import bank's 2015 small business exporter of the year for its work in cloud and aerosol measurements. roughly 2/3 of this company's

sales come from exports. that's the kind of growing business that export-import bank supports. export-represented jobs so important in today's global economy. not just the brand names, not big companies, but the type of small and midsized firms that need our support to compete on the global market. fiber lock in fort collins is a specialty based printing company in my district that provides heat transfer graphic products like computer mouses and drink coaster rugs. it's family-owned with 70 employees and about 40% of its business is international. they sell worldwide, including germany mexico and the u.k. in 2008 the company discovered export-import bank through a direct mail campaign that targeted small businesses and they've been using the small business multibuyer credit insurance since and through that, with the help of that program, export sales have grown 15% to 20% and the bank has supported over 2.7 million of fiber lock's exports. i understand that there are some on the other side of the aisle that have a philosophical problem with the existence of the charter of the authorization for this bank.

if that's the case surely unilateral disarmament is not the solution. perhaps instruct our trade negotiators to remove backdoor subsidies and other export-import banks that other nations have, but as long as these types of efforts are permit under w.t.o. and trade rules, as long as other nations support the export economy in their countries through programs like the export-import bank, why would we want to unilaterally disarm? it makes no sense and puts american businesses and american exporters at a disadvantage and will lead to the outsourcing of even more jobs overseas. . financing assistance from this bank which causes zero money to taxpayers helps ensure that american companies are playing on a level field. china japan, over 60 other nations have similar banks which export more financing to their businesses. there is strong bipartisan support for the renewal of the bank's charter. i urge every member who

supports that to help defeat the previous question so we can offer our amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i'll reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: very good. i'd like to yield to -- let's see here -- representative waters to discuss the previous question and the export-import bank from the great state of california for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much. i'd like to thank the gentleman from colorado as well as leader pelosi and whip hoyer for continuing to fight for the survival of the export-import bank. mr. speaker, we're just one day left for congress to act before the ex-im bank to shut down. i'm shocked that my republican colleagues are planning to leave town without even considering legislation to review its charter. democrats will not sit idly by. that's why i rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat the

previous question in order to force a vote on legislation sponsored by myself, mr. heck, ms. moore mr. hoyer and nearly every other democrat in this house to renew and reform the export-import bank's charter for the long term. over the past five years the export-import bank has created or sustained an estimated 1.3 million jobs and it has returned $6.9 billion to the american people over the past two decades, but next tuesday that record of success will be stopped in its tracks. the export-import bank will stop creating jobs and supporting our small businesses. it will stop returning profits to the treasury and it will stop helping to make our businesses more competitive. failure to act hands -- like china, russia and countless others that have their own version of the bank -- will

hand them a significant victory. at the hands of american workers products and businesses. today we are not given up. we're giving the broad base of democrats and republicans who support the bank to cast a vote in order to keep this engine of job creation and economic growth alive. last week my republican colleagues who support the bank failed to stand up for its survival, but with just one more day for congress to save the bank from shutting down i'm afraid that those who claim to support the export-import bank but refuse to stand up and do so do not truly support the bank or the jobs it creates. mr. speaker, businesses need to know that our government will stand up for them, not work to undermine them. i ask my colleagues to heed the advice of -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. waters: yield the advice of ronald reagan, george w. bush, bill clinton all who supported the export-import bank.

i urge a no vote on the previous question and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker i'd remind the chair that issue under consideration today before the house of representatives is h.r. -- h.res. 333 which provides for the consideration of the bill h.r. 2822, making appropriations for the department of interior, environment and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. and further providing for the consideration of the bill h.r. 2042, to allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel generating units before complying with such rule and to allow states to protect households and businesses from significant adverse effects on electricity from june 26, 2015

through july 6, 2015. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from maryland, the whip for the minority, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. my friend, dr. burgess, has just made an observation, that this resolution is about the interior subcommittee appropriation bill. i will tell, mr. speaker, as you know, the american people i'm sure know that that agency is funded through september 30 of this year. which means we have months to go before it will run out of funds. the other bill that he mentions of course as you know, is about a proposal not a rule -- it may be a rule at some point in time but it's a proposal which has no absolute definite need to be done today or next week or next month. however mr. speaker, the

export-import bank, if we do not act by tomorrow loses its authority to lone support -- not to loan money but to support but the selling of goods by america to american workers to those abroad. we just went through a trade debate which was about jobs and whether or not it was going to undermine jobs in america. now, my previous colleague, ms. waters mentioned president reagan. she menged president bush and she mentioned -- she mentioned president bush and she mentioned president clinton. the speaker of this house mr. speaker, john boehner of ohio, he says if we don't pass this we're immediately going to start losing jobs. john boehner, speaker of the house from ohio. mr. speaker i ask unanimous

consent that the house bring up h.r. 1031, a bill to protect thousands of american jobs by preventing the export-import bank from shutting down. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will advise that all time has been yielded for the purpose of debate only. so does the gentleman from texas yield for the purposes of this unanimous consent request? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i do not. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas does not yield, therefore, the unanimous consent cannot be entertained. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker again, i'd just remind the house that what is under consideration is a rule bill h.r. 333 for consideration of the appropriations bill for department of interior and h.r. 2042, to allow judicial review of any final rule addressing carbon dioxide emissions and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from washington mr. heck, a champion of re-authorizing the export-import bank for the purposes of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will advise that all time -- the gentleman may state his request. mr. heck: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up h.r. 1031, which is within its power to do, a bill to protect thousands of american jobs by preventing down -- by preventing the shutting down of the export-import bank. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from texas yield for the purposes of this unanimous consent request? mr. burgess: mr. speaker i would reiterate my earlier announcement that all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only, and i will not yield time for any other purpose. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas doesn't yield therefore, the unanimous consent cannot be entertained. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, for the purposes of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may state his request.

mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up h.r. 1031, a bill to protect thousands of american jobs by preventing the export-import bank from being shut down. the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands that the gentleman from texas has not yielded for that purpose. therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. ashford, for the purposes of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may state his request. mr. ashford: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up h.r. 1031, a bill to protect thousands of american jobs by preventing the export-import bank from shutting down. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. green, for the purposes of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may state his request. mr. green: mr. speaker, i join my colleagues and i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up h.r. 1031, a bill to protect thousands of american jobs by preventing the export-import bank from

shutting down. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, for the purposes of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may state haze request. mr. tonko: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up h.r. 1031 a bill to protect thousands of american jobs by preventing the export-import bank from shutting down. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from california mr. sherman, for the purposes of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may state his request. mr. sherman: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up h.r. 1031, a bill to protect hundreds of thousands of american jobs by preventing the shutdown of the ex-im bank. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentlelady from california, the ranking member of the committee on financial services, ms. waters for the purposes of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady may state her

request. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i continue to ask unanimous consent that the house bring up h.r. 1031, a bill to protect thousands of american jobs by preventing the export-import bank from shutting down. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. boyle, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may state his request. mr. boyle: mr. speaker, as you might be able to predict, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up h.r. 1031, a bill that would protect thousands of american jobs by preventing the shutdown of the export-import bank. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. mr. polis: we would hope that mr. boyle's request would be accepted. we do have another member from california a leader for the export-import bank, mr. cardinas. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman may state his unanimous consent. mr. cardenas: i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up h.r. 1031. the speaker pro tempore: as previously stated, the unanimous consent request can't knt be entertained. mr. polis: i yield to ms. slaughter for the purposes of a unanimous consent request. ms. slaughter: thank you. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up h.r. 1031, a bill to protect thousands of american jobs by preventing the export-import bank from shutting down. it's most important to my district. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. mr. polis: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: and, again, i just want to underscore that the issue under consideration on the house floor today is h.res. 333, for consideration of the bill h.r. 2822 making appropriations for the

department of interior, environment and related agencies. and further h.r. 2042, to allow for judicial rule allowing for carbon dioxide emissions. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from washington, a leader in the effort to re-authorize the export-import bank, mr. heck. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. heck: thank you mr. speaker. i'm going to get enormous fwrusstration off my chest today. the -- frustration off my chest today. trade promotion authority, trans-pacific partnership, trade adjustment assistance, this view that we can distill our entire nation's future trading prospects to one trade agreement or the t.p.a. leading up to it. it's wrong-headed, myopic and doesn't serve our best interests. in order for us to be successful in a global economy, we must be much more complex. infrastructure, you know, we don't even spend 2/3 of the

money generated by the harvard maintenance tax which is generated by trade on improving the ports so we can have more trade. where is that issue? the international monetary fund, five years hanging loose the reform. rome is burning. no reforms to the i.m.f. what's the consequence? this isn't real, this isn't abstract. i didn't make this up. china forms the asian infrastructure bank. brazil, india south africa form the brax bank. all of this while we sit and watch rome burn. and lastly, the export-import bank. a deficit-cutting, job-creating machine. $6 billion to reduce our deficit. 164,000 jobs in the country just last year. . 95%, as so often -- has so

often been said, lives outside the borders of the great country of the united states of america. and if we want to keep our middle class, we're going to have to learn how to sell into their middle class and engage in global trade. but it is more complex than just one trade agreement or i.m.f. or what we do with the infrastructure investment. it is all of these things. and yes at the top of that list , the export-import bank, a deficit-cutting job-creating machine. we need to re-authorize the export-import bank one day left. because the layoff notices are going out. next week. people will lose that, which they value more than anything in life, save their family. that is the opportunity to be self-sufficient. and provide for themselves. ladies and gentlemen, i beseech you. vote against the previous question. brick up h.r. 103 -- bring up h.r. 1031, re-authorize the

export-import bank, in the name of cutting deficits and creating jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker i'll reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. you heard what we will bring up if we defeat the previous question. you'll now hear what this body under this rule has chosen to consider instead. a bill that, as mr. hoyer said could be done any time and a bill that is bad, as will now be explained from the gentleman from arizona the distinguished member of the committee on natural resources, mr. grijalva, to whom i yield three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you very much. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to house resolution 333. the interior appropriations bill is a disaster. not only because it would continue the pattern of underfunding core department of interior programs and ignoring climate change but also because it's littered with partisan legislative rides that

are don't belong in an appropriations bill. this rule does nothing to improve the bill and even includes waivers to protect these illegitimate riders. republicans make the rules but through this appropriations bill, they seek to break their own rules and sneak significant legislative changes into this spending bill. the riders protected by this rule would make species extinction more likely, close the courthouse door to american citizens and grease the we'lls for big -- wheels for big business to make private profits. these are terrible idea yds that should be considered in the natural resources committee, not snuck into an interior bill. i have the honor of serving as ranking member of natural resources committee and i would tell my colleagues, we have hearing rules, full staff if you support delisting endangered species or giving away public resources to wealthy companies, you should

put your name on a bill come over to 1324 in longworth for a hearing. while i cannot speak for the chairman of the natural resources committee and ranking members, i cannot agree to cede jurisdiction over management of our federal natural resources to appropriators. and i cannot support a rule designed to allow it. even though the best available science indicates otherwise, section 121 of the underlying bill would direct the secretary to issue two final rules removing wolfs in wyoming and the great lakes -- woves in wyoming and the great lakes from the endangered species list. we aren't the experts, we should not interfere with the species list. and recovery process. all at -- at all. let alone interfere through an appropriations bill where the merits of such proposals cannot be given any appropriate consideration. this is why the house rules prohibit these riders and this

rule should not protect them. another awful rider would block fish and wildlife service from crack down on illegal ivory trade within the u.s. the poaching of elephants and trafficking of illegal ivory is currently at an all-time 25-year high. here in the u.s. and the u.s. is one of the major markets for the sale of illegal ivory. section 120 of the underlying bill would restrict our ability to regulate the trade of elephant ivory in the u.s. and will directly contribute to elephant slaughter. house rules prohibit these kinds of sneaky partisan riders in spending bills for a good reason. we should not adopt a rule to protect these provisions. if these provisions are so toxic they can only be passed by waiving house rules, they shouldn't be passed at all. either way the question should be considered in the authorizing committee, not in the appropriations bill and not in this rule and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas is

recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. i would remind the gentleman from arizona that this appropriations bill is coming to the floor, as has been the custom during the republican majority, under a modified open rule. which means that any member is able to bring an amendment to the floor of the house and have it heard and this of course, includes limitation amendments that would be heard at the end of the reading of the bill, that would allow for the striking of any of the provisions that he finds objectionable and then all that is necessary for the gentleman to do is to convince 218 members of this body to vote with him on an amendment' and he will be able to accomplish his -- an amendment and he will be able to accomplish his heart's desire. a modified open rule is a good process and allows the will of the house to be heard on this bill and i look forward to us passing -- affirming the previous question, passing the rule to allow the bill to be heard and then we can get on to

the business at hand. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i think the problem with the gentleman from texas' idea is that the base bill is so bad it could take this body weeks or months to fix it. meanwhile, we're one day away from the export-import bank's re-authorization. so at least let's get that done and then we're happy to begin the work of trying to fix this terrible bill. although again it might be more productive to defeat it, send it back to appropriations, have they come up with a better base bill. i'm proud to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from california mr. sherman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. sherman: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we are one day away from the end of the authorization of the ex-im bank. american businesses are already losing contracts, as foreign companies must decide whether to structure themselves around american equipment or whether to buy from another source. that foreign source offers

stable export promotion authority financing, provided by the governments of germany, japan, china etc. whereas we dawdle here. the purpose of a rule is to decide how the house will devote its time here on the floor. the most pressing matter before us is the export-import bank. that is why we should defeat the rule and focus the house on the most pressing matter. and we should allow the house to work its will. a majority of this body wants to re-authorize the ex-im bank but instead we are be being held hostage by a group -- we are being held hostage by a group inside only one of the two caucuses. i gave 100 speeches for george mcgovern. i'm proud of that. we were accused of unilateral disarmament being our platform. this is a platform for

unilateral disarmament. because this is a platform that says germany, japan, china will sub dies -- will provide financing to push their exports and we will be disarmed in the world of business. export-import bank makes money. the c.b.o. concludes that, generally accepting accounting principles conclude that. the enemies of the bank have concocted a fantasy accounting system and only under that system, used nowhere else, is there any argument that the ex-im bank does not make money. we have hundreds of thousands of american jobs at stake. they should not be sacrificed on the altar of a new religion. ann rand is not a deity. fountainhead is not holy scripture. and we need to make practical decisions in the real world

where we face real competition from real competitors. that's why we need to focus the attention of this house on today's most pressing issue, the re-authorization of ex-im bank. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, may i inquire of the gentleman from colorado how many additional speakers he has? mr. polis: we have one remaining speaker. mr. burgess: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado voiced. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman from nebraska, a leader in the effort to re-authorize the export-import bank, mr. ashford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. ash ash thank you. thank you -- mr. ashford: thank you, and thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to express my support for the re-authorization of the export-import bank. the ex-im bank is an agency with one mission, to foster american job growth by helping american companies with the tools they need to compete in the global marketplace.

in short the ex-im bank provides the business community the certainty it needs to compete in overseas markets and grow jobs at home. why am i so supportive of the ex-im bank and its re-authorization? in my district alone, in the month of may, the ex-im bank provided $3.8 million of nebraska's export goods into the global marketplace. companies as large as valman month industries -- valmont industry, companies as small as volcanic peppers, that in a small kitchen, produce hot sauce that is exported to australia. in fiscal 2014, ex-im bank supported approximately $107 million in nebraska exports, 49% of which went to nebraska small businesses. since 2007, the bank has supported $230 million in

exports from iowa -- from 52 iowa companies and $550 million in exports from 39 nebraska companies. this translates into american private sector jobs in every district of this country. in real terms, the ex-im bank helps to level the playing field for both large and small businesses who export products abroad. simply put there is no rational reason, mr. speaker, for allowing american products and american goods to have a disadvantage in the global marketplace. congress must re-authorize the ex-im bank immediately and i am committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make this happen. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: mr. speaker i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i'd like to inquire

if the gentleman is prepared to close? mr. burgess: prepared to close. mr. polis: then i am prepared to close. i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: so, mr. speaker i think it's clear what we would like to do, what democrats would like to do, like the pro-business members of this house would try to do. we want to, with one legislative day left, bring forward a re-authorization of the export-import bank. for the reasons that have been made abundantly clear by my democratic colleagues. and i know an idea that is shared by many perhaps less outspoken members on your side of the aisle, who also support re-authorizing the export-import bank. let's have a clean vote. if we defeat the previous question that's exactly what we will bring forward, a seven-year altogether zration that i believe will pass -- authorization that i believe will pass this body. now, let's talk about now what this house is choosing to do instead under these rules. two bills that are not urgent, are not timely.

both of which would meet approximately -- meet presidential vetoes. ratepayer protection act of 2015, which i'll talk about, which again will go nowhere, even if it gets out of both chambers, will get a presidential veto and won't have 2/3 in this body to override. and interior appropriations which needs to be done but could be done next week while we are up against a deadline of the expiration of the export-import bank. the ratepayer protection act pertains to the recently proposed clean power plant, which establishes a mission guideline for states to follow in developing plans to control carbon pollution from existing coal and natural gas fired powers. like so many presidential initiatives, it stems out of the president's legitimate authority to act in areas under his statutory authority when this body fails to act. and i applaud the president for using his existing executive powers in immigration. i applaud the president for using his existing executive powers for clean power plan to work with the states and e.p.a. what this bill would do

however, is suspend implementation of the clean power plant and all compliance of submission deadlines until a very view can be completed, already in process -- review can be completed, already in process. there is no existing rule, the proposed clean power plant is a proposal. let's give the executive branch the opportunity to at least comforward with a final proposal -- come forward with a final proposal before this body decides they somehow want to invalidate that very proposal. i've discussed this i discussed this proposal with many people in my district and there are issues that need to be worked out to make this feasible. i heard from rural electric utilities and many others and we all want to make sure that ratepayers are not detrimentally impacted. the idea is not to cut the process short. that's why developers are actually working with the e.p.a. through a public input process that includes rural electric utilities and others, an unprecedented reach of

outreach opportunities that e.p.a. is doing, including in my district. they are saying they want to amend this proposed rule to make it work better. if a majority of this body doesn't like the final result then it's time to talk about how we want to amend it and how this body would rather deal with emissions and carbon reduction. there's plenty of other opportunities. this body several years ago considered a cap and trade program. i'm a co-sponsor of a bill with mr. delaney that would implement a carbon tax and use the income from that to reduce the corporate tax rate and reduce the tax burden on american businesses. there's plenty of good ideas out there, but let's at least see what the administration and the e.p.a. come up with and then respond to its final proposal with meaningful legislation to address our carbon emissions. passing this bill now would prematurely undermine the e.p.a.'s collaborative effort instead of encouraging them to involve multiple stakeholders in reducing carbon emissions.

under current law, the e.p.a. is required to develop and implement a federal plan for any state that fails to submit its own state plan. meaning passage of this bill would overturn that bill in the clean air act meaning a state would find itself in a place where if it fails to utilize the flexibility this rule provides, it might have a plan that they haven't been part of forming. i would urge my colleagues to reflect on a position that not only disregards science but runs in opposition to business, the religious community and our national and global security. congress can constructively weigh in on reducing carbon emissions. i encourage this body to do so. there's a number of great bills that would provide a statutory mechanism to reduce our carbon emissions, but instead of going that route, this body is saying we don't even want to see what the president comes up with, what the e.p.a. comes up with. we want to invalidate it before they even finalize it. we want to invalidate that hard work of listening to rural

elect trick groups and throw it out because somehow politicians in washington know better. that's the wrong answer and the american people want stand for it. let's talk about the other bill that republicans are bringing forward under this rule instead of re-authorizing the export-import bank. the interior and related agencies appropriations bill. first of all, i always try to talk about what's good in the bill. i do want to commend the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for including the payment in lieu of taxes program, or pilt. as a representative of the district that's 62% owned by the federal government and therefore untaxable by our local taxing jurisdictions, i know how important it is to ensure the sustainability of our county programs, particularly those that affect our federal lands. but much of the remainder of the bill and the reasoning for my opposition to it is the drastic approach it takes to nearly every other environmental, energy and animal welfare issue facing our

nation. the bill fails to deal with the issue of fire sharing, a mechanism utilized that takes money from the forest service and gives it to emergency response systems in the wake of wildfires. this limits the forest service resources and capabilities that could be used for the protection of watershed, eninsurance of access on forest service lands, especially those like some in my district that are affected by forest fires. this bill sets backward priorities for the bureau of land management. funding the continuation and expansion of oil and gas permitting when it doesn't facilitate the zoning of solar or wind projects as my bipartisan bill with mr. gosar would do. the national park service passing a -- facing a backlog is also drastically cut under this bill. the bill also fails to address the fact that off-shore oil and gas operations require an inspection fee while on-shore wells do not. this bill fails to address the looming expiration of the land and water conservation fund that helps american citizens

businesses, homeowners and communities to protect important lands and resources. as mr. grijalva pointed out, a number of policy riders, any one of which would be grounds for veto by the president of the united states. it fails to adequately fund the environmental protection agency and enforce and ensure protections granted to critical species under the endangered species act. this bill needs a lot of work. i suggest we reject it, send it back to the appropriations committee and let them come up with a more meaningful effort to fund our department of the interior, a goal that all of us share. i also urge my colleagues to reject the ratepayer protection act of 2015, a bill that seeks to proactively invalidate the process of listening, what the environmental protection agency has done with many stakeholders in my district and across the country. instead mr. speaker, i call upon my colleagues to defeat the previous question so with one day remaining we can move

to re-authorize the export-import bank, protect over 130000 american jobs, help american small businesses compete in an increasingly global economy and grow our export-related economy in colorado and across the nation. i encourage my colleagues to reject the previous question to reject the rule, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. burgess: madam speaker, six years ago this week -- i don't if many people remember the activities on the house floor six years ago this week, but in june of 2009, right before we left for the july fourth recess, the speaker of the house, the then speaker of the house nancy pelosi brought forward to this floor a bill, the bill was called waxman-markey it was the cap and trade bill, a bill that came through our committee

energy and commerce. i thought it was a dead duck when it left there, but that bill was pushed through the floor the last of june of 2009. madam speaker, i don't know that i need to remind you, in 2009 right after the 2008 election, republicans were deeply in the minority. people talked about the fact that republicans were so far in the minority that 40 years in the wilderness actually sounded like the best-case scenario for house republicans. but something happened and it began that last week of june, 2009. now a lot of people will credit the change in the house majority to the president's health care law and indeed it was ill-advised and indeed it did upset a lot of people quickly but prior to that even before we began having the big debates on the affordable care act, the big debates on what became obamacare, the then speaker of the house brought to this floor of this house

waxman-markey. and waxman-markey, when people started to look at it, we started to get phone calls. i can't sell my house unless the department of energy certifies it as reaching certain levels of energy efficiency. how am i supposed to be able to do that? that's not a -- that's not a free society. that's not a free country where i am prohibited from selling the one possession that i had used to accumulate dollars in my estate over my entire life and i can't sell it without permission from the department of energy and people were legitimately asking questions about what this cap and trade bill will do. well, madam speaker, i got to tell you there's some times in this body where there's one of those moments where the incandescent light bulb goes off and one of those light night, we were sitting in the house rules committee, we were hearing testimony, two members from kentucky, one on the majority and one on the minority. the one in the majority is

bringing 2042, the ratepayer protection act. mr. whitfield of kentucky was explaining what the bill would do, the protections the bill would provide. and the other member from kentucky, member of the minority said, because of the failure of the legislative process, the president was required to act and this is part of the president's climate action plan. well, what the h failure of the legislative process? i would submit the legislative process functioned as intended when speaker pelosi brought waxman-markey to the floor of this house, this house -- i'm not finished. when this house passed that bill and we went back to our districts that weekend, i'll tell you what we caught. we caught unmitigated holy you know what because people were so incensed at the freedoms that waxman-markey and the cap and trade program would take away from them. so when the gentleman last night said it was failure of the legislative process so the president had to act it was exactly the performance of the

legislative process that delivered us from a very bad proposition because what happened after that? what happened after that because the country was in such a convulsion about what the house had done, because the visceral and immediate reaction of the people of the united states was, hold the phone we don't want what they're doing, the senate, which was fully invested in passing a cap and trade bill, you had senators who thought cap and trade was the be all and end all. that's the reason they were in the united states senate. they didn't bring it up. it never came up for a vote. so here was a situation where the democrats had -- i don't remember. a 55-seat majority on us here in the house of representatives, and a 60-vote veto -- filibuster-proof majority over in the senate, they couldn't get this done. they couldn't get this done because the people said, no, no don't do this to me. and so the legislative process worked. the senate said, i ain't got the courage to do this right

before the 2010 election and the proposition died at the end of the session that concluded on december 31, 2010. and i would just submit that as a good thing. so here we have before us a bill today to do in some measure provide in some measure some of the protections about things that people were worried about six years ago, but it is precisely because we were where we were six years that we are now considering a bill that would hold back some of the rulemaking authority from the environmental protection agency. madam speaker under today's rule we're providing for the consideration of two important bills. bills that prevent the environmental protection agency from doing irreversible damage to our economy through dozens of ill-advised regulations that administrator mccarthy is looking to push onto the american people before president obama leaves the white house in january, 2017. the bill is thoughtful responses to one of the most egregious agencies in the

administration. i look forward to a full debate. i move the previous question and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: madam speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the anne -- by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. 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.]