wyoming reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: may ini inquire as thth balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 8 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from wyoming has 8 3/4 minutes. mr. huffman: i appreciate the gentleman's statements about when fresh water becomes salt water. i'm pleased to yield to a gentleman who understands the ecological and economical value of that mixing zone from wresh water -- fresh water becomes salt water and represents communities depending on that point at which fresh water becomes salt water and if it were compromise and if that salt walter were allowed to intrude he represents the front line of communities that would be very adversely impacted. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to my colleague, mike thompson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. .

mr. thompson: if that freshwater doesn't run through and to the ocean the saltwater runs back in. i have two major cities in my district that relies on that for the source of water. if this bill passes, their water supply is in jeopardy. you can't drink salts water. it just doesn't work. california is in the middle of an extreme drought. it's not due to a lack of pumping. it's not because our state's water regulations and it's not because we're putting fish ahead of farms and people. it's because there's no rain and there's no snow. no bill can make it rain but this bill makes a bad situation even worse. it's wrong for california. it won't stop the drought. it won't make it rain but it will kill jobs and it will ruin drinking water for millions of californians. the state of california won't support this bill because it ignores 20 years of established science and undermines our extensive efforts to implement

equal measures to address long-standing water shortages. we've been down this road before in california. we ignored science and we diverted water out of the clamoth river and nearly 80,000 spawning salmon died. livelihoods were lost. this bill also sets a dangerous precedent for every other state in our california. california has long--- state in our country. california has long-standing rules and this bill overrides regulations that californians themselves devised to govern our state's water supplies. it tells local resource managers in water districts how to administrator their water supply. if we pass this bill, we're telling every state in america that we're ok with the federal government undermining local experts and state laws from coast to coast. if that weren't enough this bill also undercuts long-standing environmental laws. the legislation we're debating today redefines the standard by

which the endangered species act is applied. this will weaken the law, increase the risk of species extinction and lead to countless lauts and costly litigations. it's as if the majority is holding wildlife responsible for our lack of rain. you'll hear on the other side talk about a little fish, the delta smelt and how we're protecting fish at the expense of people. the truth is as the gentleman from california mentioned, the protection of the smelt hasn't preventing one drop of water from being pumped south since 2013. we haven't pumped more water south because there simply isn't enough water. we're in a drought. and i'm not insensitive to the supply and demand reality of california's water. i understand the concerns of the central valley farmers. i'm a farmer myself, but if my well runs dry the solution isn't to steal the water from my neighbors. we need real solutions that are

based on science and that work for everyone. this bill is not that solution. it's bad for california. it's bad for the states. it's bad for our environment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. chairman. facts are stubborn things. according to the bureau of reclamation, biological reduce central valley's exports by 6 acre-feet in 2014. already this year according to the bureau of reclamation, species have reduced valley project waters to farmers by 280000 acre-feet. again, my source is the bureau of reclamation. at this time, mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the chairman of the house natural resources committee, mr. bishop of utah. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. you know, the other day, one

said, today is going to be a glorious day. he obviously was talking about the sunshine outside, which means we should have done this bill yesterday so i could be on my deck right now but that's beside the point. this is, though, a glorious day because we are finally doing a solution that helps people. instead of just kicking the can down the road again for another year, we are going to find a solution to this problem. this problem of a drought that is affecting the entire west to such a degree that one would think that nost are a dam us' claims have come -- nostradamu s's claims have come trufmente many opponents of the bill would say hey let's pass more rain dances and hope something happens. what we're doing here is taking the advice of our pioneering forefathers and say what we have save, do it not just for california but the entire west. that is the purpose behind this particular bill. there are some concerns about environmental issues that may or may not have been wise to do in the past. that is not the concern of this

bill. we're not stopping any of that. what we are doing is finding a creative way to provide for that but also provide a way of getting water to people where they need it. you know in the middle of the last century we did water projects and hydropower projects that helped us win the war. now is the time to do water projects and hydropower projects to help us feed people in this nation and in the entire world and help out areas that have up to 50% unemployment. i have been down there and i have seen those particular communities. many of them first and second generation americans. minorities who only want to provide a decent living for themselves and for their families and to work. and what we need to do is actually solve this problem so we can put people to work to provide food for this country and to provide jobs for people and to help people. that's what this bill is about, finally, helping people with creative solutions. if the romans could build an aqueduct system to move water, we can build a system to move

water that actually helps people. this is about people. pass this bill. let's move it on. let's solve the problem. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. chairman. i am pleased to yield 2 1/2 minutes to my colleague from los angeles, a city that frankly is pioneers some of the most promising water management strategies we have in california, strategies that are reflected in our democratic alternative bill for which i'm grateful that mr. cardenas is a co-sponsor. they are stretching imported water wisely, but using recycled water treating stormwater, working on the cutting edge. they deserve federal support, support that our colleagues across the aisle has failed to give for too many years. 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes.

mr. cardenas: thank you for your wonderful work always on these issues. ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is a failure to communicate, a failure to communicate our priorities but more importantly as legislators a failure to work on compromise. california's currently facing an historic drought. we can no longer take water for granted. every single californian has been forced to examined how much we truly depend on clean and reliable water in our everyday lives. city residence and businesses around the state are cutting back but it's not enough. unless the western united states experiences significant rainfall in the near future we will see ghost towns and extreme hardship for the most at-risk populations of our state. while much of the coverage in the media has been on brown lawns across the state and the rationing that's going on, the real impact threatens the lives of hardworking families throughout our state. take a trip through california's central valley, there you will see the gravity of the situation. you'll see unemployment rates double our triple the national

average, forcing families into makeshift dwellings that remind us of the hoffervilles during the durst bowl. these people aren't thinking of their brown lawns. they're thinking of the fact they have lost their home. these families want their jobs back. they want to go to work so they can feed their children. this bill and the various democratic alternatives are works in progress. we have to fund -- find a solution, but this bill is not it. if we are serious about facing the challenges our constituents sent us here to solve i'm ready and willing to work with you and with you to make the necessary tough decisions and compromises. i look forward to working with mr. costa whose district is experiencing the most significant impacts and senators dianne feinstein and barbara boxer to craft a stronger bipartisan bicameral solution. we have no choice but to find better ways to capture and transport water in all parts of the state to meet the needs of

the people and our economy while protecting the environment and delicate species. we must not use this time of need as a way to pick partisan fights. we have to find legislation that protects our environment while we also protect california families. lives are at stake. ladies and gentlemen, we need to come together and work together. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. lummis: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. calvert, chairman of the subcommittee on interior and environment of the house appropriations committee. mr. calvert: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. calvert: mr. chairman, here we go again debating solutions to california's water woes with each side making similar arguments we've heard for years. in fact, more than a decade ago i was standing in this very stop in the middle of the debate of the last significant western water law that congress

passed. we passed calfed, a law in 2004 and hoped it would help california establish relyable, affordable water supplies that would -- reliable affordable water supplies that would help us get us through dry spells which we're experiencing again. why are we here again debating similar issues? the simple answer is we allowed the don't build anything faction in california blocked the critical investments we need to make in our state's water infrastructure. the calfed law offered feasibility studies for large water facilities upper san joaquin, expanding others and raising the shasta dam. a decade later our state's population has grown by three million new residents and knows projects are still being studied -- and those projects are still being studied. think about that, california's population has grown the same amount as the population of the entire state of iowa, and we

haven't made the significant investments in our water infrastructure to accommodate those residents. it's well past time to stop talking about these projects and start building them. thankfully the bill before us will move us in that direction by requiring our resource agencies to finally complete those decade-long feasibility studies. of course, building water storage doesn't help us in the short term and it also requires excess water that can be diverted. that's why the western water and american food security act injects common sense and science in our water infrastructure. when it does rain again, we simply can't afford to make the same mistakes we've made in the past and allow millions of gallons to flow out to the pacific ocean. those wasted flows don't benefit the environment. farmers or california residents, and they must be directed to a higher, better use. mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, we have a clear choice before us today. can have i 30 additional

seconds? mrs. lummis: i yield 30 additional seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: we can continue to listen to those who oppose investing in california's water infrastructure and we can believe we can restrict our way out of this problem or we can recognize that california's situation today is far worse than it should be precisely because our failure to build adequate water storage and restore more science and common sense into water policies that are operating today. i encourage all my colleagues to support the western water and american food security act. we can avoid being back here on the house floor during california's next drought having these very same arguments. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: mr. chairman, how much time do we have left? the chair: the gentleman from california has three minutes left. mr. huffman: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the sacramento valley, mr. garamendi. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes.

mr. garamendi: i thank you, mr. speaker and my colleagues. we've been here before. i've listened to my colleagues who are the proponents of this bill over the last five years, and as the previous speaker said, we've gone this path before. there really is a solution. unfortunately, i guess, all of us in one way or another hang to our past rhetoric and ignore the opportunity that really demands our attention now to develop a comprehensive god policy for california. there -- good policy for california. this bill is an improvement over the past bills there's no doubt about it. the issue moving forward with the projects that are necessary. that's all good. dams other kinds of programs aquifer restoration, good deal.

however, in is in this bill things that are very, very troublesome. you cannot mandate by law the operations of the water systems in california or anywhere else. you cannot -- you cannot specify how they will be operating because you do not know on a day-to-day or year-to-year or month-to-month basis what actually will be on the ground. so that portion of the bill that sets out those operating procedures should be removed. goals yes. operating procedures, no. it just won't work. and as said by both the federal and state governments, if you were to move this bill forward into law, you would create chaos in california. every paragraph, every comma, every word in california water law, both in law and in court decisions, sets the precedent. but unfortunately this bill overrides that. .

we're very close to it. we can put this together. my colleague, mr. huffman, has a proposal that's comprehensive and it ought to be integrated into our programs. it ought to be i want grated into this bill. but the kind of compromise and discussion that is necessary to develop a law that actually works has not been undertaken. so i urge my colleagues, the proponents of this bill, to slow it down. let the state and federal government continue to do what they're doing, and that is to operate this system to the maximum potential despite the fact that there's very, very little water. mr. huffman: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. garen men dee: we can do this but we have to work together. unfortunately that has not occur. i urge my colleague, the proponents of this bill, to take the time to meet with those of white house will be the losers if this bill moves forward. we can all be winners. i draw your attention to mr. huffman's legislation which is

comprehensive, which will work and which could be i want grated into this legislation. in the meantime, i continue to oppose it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. lummis: respectfully, when i was in california in the central valley i saw chaos. it's already happening. and the people are desperate for a solution. with that mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. nunes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. nunes: i have a statement i would like to submit for the record. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. nunes: for seven, eight years, continually, the republicans have offered solutions and continually nearly all the democrats have voted no. so this isn't about sloughs because the real solution that the left wants is to idle over a million acres of farm ground in the san joaquin valley.

and this is why the forefathers of our state built a system that would withstand a drought of five years. now look, we need additional storage, but everyone in this body, anyone who knows anything about water knows that if you don't fix the plumbing in the delta, if you don't deal with the san joaquin river settlement, and if you don't build a few new storage projects, other a million acres of farm grounds will go idle. those are the facts. and conveniently, most of my friends who are up here speaking on the left live in the coastal areas and get their water, they steal their water from our area to give themselves pristine drinking water. that's what they do. and so now we're dealing with, we're going to be left with the chaos that's developed of over a million acres of farm ground coming out of production unless the senate can take and act on this legislation quickly. i yelled back the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. huffman: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. lummis: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. denham. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. denham: thank you for yielding on this important issue. some will say they're not voting for this bill buzz of the challenges they perceive that are in it. the biggest problem with this bill is that it doesn't do enough. we need millions of new acre neat of water. we should be looking at the next generation. i want my kids to farm. but without new water supplies, we continue to see farmers go out of business. that speaks to the security of our food supply as a country. you can't farm with a zero allocation of water. which is why you see the high

unemployment. which is why you see farm workers that are going to be homeless, without jobs this year. which is why you'll see more farms go out of business. this is a battle that's gone on for quite some time. this bill deals with some very small issues that will be very significant this year. we need to have the full debate about what our country is going to do with this water supply and the greater storage we're going to need in the future. but dealing with some common sense issues like predator fish, why try to save fish only to allow them to be eaten by a nonnative fish that eats 98% of the fish that we're spending millions of dollars to provide. that's not an environmental solution, any more than trucking fish around a river because the river can't handle the fish. if you want to be an ex-creamist, be an extremist dealing with a common sense solution here. this bill moves us in the right direction.

this will help farms stay in business. this will allow us to continue to have jobs in the central valley and a vibrant food supply for the rest of the country. this bill is right for passing this morning and we would ask for a bipartisan vote. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming. mrs. lummis: i yield one minute to the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. tipton: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i rise in support of the western water and american food security act of 2015. this would uphold state water law and priority based systems and provide water use wers a line of defense from increasingly brazen federal attempts to take water rights without compensation. these federal water grabs undermine state water law,

priority-based systems and/or private property rights. by restoring rights, the federal government is overreaching violating private property rights and the u.s. constitution. federal land management agency atempts to control private water rights and circumvent state law put the community grazers and others at risk. private property rights are vital to colorado and the western u.s. when it pertains to water. many businesses depend on them as collateral to get loans to expand and create jobs. water is our lifeblood. water users need certainty that they're prevented from future attempts to take privately held water rights. this offers a sensible approach to preserve those rights. i urge its passage and adoption. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves. the gentleman from california is recognize. mr. huffman: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized.

mrs. lummis: i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. the chair: the gentleman is recognize for -- recognized for one minute. mr. davis: mr. speaker, i was going to put this up but i don't know how to work the tripod as well. but this is a very important issue and this is a very important chart because many ask, why would somebody from illinois come talk about a bill that has to do with water in california? look at this chart. 99% of the almonds, 99% of this edates, 99% of the kiwis we eat in central illinois in my district come from the central valley of california. all those crops need water to grow. now i want to thank my colleague, mr. valadao from california for introducing this bill. i've seen the central valley of california.

i understand the importance of this issue to my consumers and as the subcommittee chairman on the house ag committee's subcommittee on horticulture research and biotechnology, the issues we face here changing policies in washington, d.c. affect the price of food that my consumers pay for back in illinois and affect the many californians living in the central valley dealing with this tremendous issue. i urge a vote yes on this bill and i want to thank all my colleagues who are here today and encourage them once more. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. huffman: i reseven. the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. mrs. lummis: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, ms. walters. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. walters: this year marks california's fourth consecutive year of the drought. in kale alone over 37 million people -- in california alone over 37 million people are

affected by the drought. the cost is expected to be $3 billion and almost 19,000 agricultural jobs will be lost. our current problem is not the result of lack of rain it's the result of failed policies. my colleagues and i in the house come before you today with a solution. the western water and american food security act of 2015. this vital bill will modernize our water infrastructure into the 21st century and ensure that california is well-equipped to handle future drought crises. i urge my colleague to support this bill and stand with me as we work to provide californians with the water resources thigh need. mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. huffman: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. mrs. lummis: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. knight. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. knight: thank you mr.

speaker. i i rise in support of h.r. 289 the western water and american food security act. i'll give just a couple of examples, live in the desert of southern california i'm not a northern california person not a central valley person but i am a desert rat in california that understands water is imperative to all our needs. what is happening in my district right now is 35% reduction in water. that is what they're requesting all of our water company have come forward and said they're raising rates between 30% and 40%. now let me tell you, you cannot reduce your water 35%. you cannot do it in a single family house. you can reduce, you can get down to about 10% or 15% but when you're talking 35%, it doesn't happen. that is the life we are living in today. i've been sitting here for about an hour i've taken a few notes about what might happen if we

pass this and one of the things that hit me was reignite the environmental wars, reignite the problems that we're having with water in california. let me tell you, i don't believe there's a state in the union that's going through as many adjudications of water than is happening in california right now. if we are talking about reigniting the water wars or reegg niting the environmental wars, they're happening today, right now. in my district alone we have water adjute -- adjudication that's been going on for 17 years. if we're talking about reignites the environmental wars, it's happening right now right today. it's not just the delta smelt. it is the environmental impacts that we are putting on fish above people. now in my district again we have an issue where the department of water and power from l.a. cannot release water down a canyon to help the people in the canyon because we have the stickleback fish in there and they're afraid it's going to harm that fish.

so they've reduced the watter from 1,200 acre-feet per year to 300 acre-feet. the environmental wars are happening in california today. if we do not do something -- mrs. lummis: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. knight: if we do not do something, then when? when do we go back to our constituents and say that we are actually working on the number one priority in california. a state without water is dead. i did a teletown hall two weeks ago. i took 18 phone calls in one hour. 17 phone calls were on water. one phone call had no idea what he was talking about. but 17 phone calls out of 18 were on water. this is the number one priority, if not today when? i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from

wyoming. mrs. lummis: mr. chairman, we have no more speakers, we are prepared to close. mr. huffman: mr. chairman -- the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: we have a bill that unfortunately would run roughshod over california state law with respect to water, with respect to management of wildlife a bill that would do harm to the endangered species act, and other federal environmental laws and a bill that would indeed ignite a water war rather than seriously solve problems on this important issue. don't take it from me. take it from other serious voices that have examined this bill and the democratic alternative. take it from the los angeles times. take it from the "san francisco chronicle." take it from the department of interior and the obama administration which issued a veto threat. this is the same bill that's passed on party lines each of the last few years only to be parked in the senate and go

nowhere. it's high time we start talking to each other and working with each other on serious, bipartisan solutions for our water challenges instead of playing party politics. with that, i urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. mrs. lummis: mr. chairman, i would prefer to take it from the farmers who are desperate for water. these are people who have instituted conservation measures that cost them millions of dollars, changing their crops from things like lettuce and tomatos to almond and pis tashyow trees with -- and pistachio trees with drip irrigation that conserve million os of gallons of water and still those trees were allowed to dry up and die. i yield the remainder of our time to the sponsor of this bill mr. valadao. .

mr. valadao: i want to thank so many on both sides of the aisle who worked hard on this legislation. we spent months working on it. we crafted it throughout the beginning of this congress and it's been an important bill and it's going to continue to be an important bill. we look forward to seeing who has the courage to stand up and actually vote to help the folks of california. when we see the situation that's going on out there in the valley, and we see the faces of these people standing in those food lines, the people that worked so hard for so many years to help build farms to help build businesses for their families and we see those farm workers who have come and had the opportunity to put their kids through school, many of them end up in really great places. some of them in congress like myself. when you see so many different opportunities that come from the valley, and when we have a situation like we have today where we've literally been cut off from water, we've had years in the past decade where we had abundance of water and abundance of snowpack and we still get a small fraction of the contract that it amounts. and now today, we're down to zero.

and so when people speak of conservation we have to find a way to conserve water, save water, absolutely we've done those things. we've implementing everything from drip irrigation, change of crops to even trying to breed better more drought-tolerant crops. we do it in our homes. we've done it in the way we live our lives. at the end of the day, you can't conserve anything from zero because zero is nothing. there's nothing left. and what it's done to our economy, what it's done to the people in the valley, what it's done to the nation, food costs across the nation, when we look at places to save money, food cost is having a huge impact on us all throughout the country. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. valadao: i ask for an aye vote. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. mrs. lummis: mr. chairman, before yielding back, i include for the record an exchange of letters between chairman rob bishop of the natural resources committee and chairman conaway of the committee on agriculture.

the chair: that is to be covered under general leave. the gentlewoman from wyoming's time has expired. all time for general debate has expired. the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 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 114-23. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 114- 204. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report 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. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-204. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-204 offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution -- the gentleman will hold. pursuant to house resolution 362, the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. as i said, this amendment makes one technical change to the bill by capitalizing an acronym

in the table of contents. makes one clarifying change to title 9 by ensuring that those who have already negotiated prepayments of their debt to the u.s. treasury are not impacted by provisions in that title. and i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition although i am not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection the gentleman is recognized. mr. huffman: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman, who has the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, closes. mr. mcclintock: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: i do not oppose this technical amendment to the bill, but i do want to point out that fixing typos and

realpha betiesing indexes do not fix the much deeper problems with this bill and do not change the reality that is not going to become law because it has deep substantive problems that need to be addressed. that is why it's so widely opposed as it has been in prior years when essentially the same bill has been run through on party lines. i will yield one minute to my colleague from fresno at this point. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. costa: i thank the gentleman for yielding one minute. while this amendment does make technical changes that were agreed upon in committee, it speaks to i think a much larger question which is the debate we've been having here and that is, is this in fact a work in progress? and i submit that it is. obviously this legislation would not be signed into law under its current form, and i think many of those who are supporting the legislation understand that.

but we understand that in fact there is a crisis, a drought facing california affecting every region of california. and for those of us who feel very strongly about trying to maintain a strong agriculture economy, we know we have to work together. the fact is is california produces half of the nation's fruits and vegetables and these are 300 commodities that are so important to not only america's food supply but to a good healthy diet and to ensure that in fact we can compete around the world as it relates to ensuring that america remains independent in producing its own food. there's a lot at stake here and we need to work together as this process goes along. we will have serious areas of disagreement, but that doesn't mean we can't continue to work together. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: again, i'm prepared to close when the gentleman's finished.

the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. chairman. again, we don't oppose this technical amendment, but we wish that there was substantive amendments that might address some of the deep flaws that have prevented this bill from having any chance of becoming law in prior years and will again this year. i would just close by quoting from the "los angeles times." it states, a competing democratic bill by jared huffman has areas of overlap. like the valadao bill, it calls on the federal government to accelerate feasibility studies for a number of proposed dams that have been stuck for years in the planning phase. republicans, of course, have faith that the dams will pencil out and be funded. many democrats are convinced that the yield numbers and the amount of additional number that will be stored and the sorbleted dollar costs will be so paltry as to finally put an end to the discussion. in other areas, though, the huffman bill is starkly different and frankly much smarter focusing on updated water policies and practices that today are firmly rooted in

outdated mid 20th century knowledge and technology. there is a lot we could work on substantively. we certainly have flobs to the technical changes here but it is high time we have hearings and serious deliberations and discussions about substance and if we do that we might just find there are some common solutiones that could become law. with that i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman i'd simply remind my colleague that in the 112th congress this bill went through one of the most exhaustive public processes of any bill heard by congress. its genesis was in two public hearings in the central valley in 2010 and 2011. it was vetted through not one but two public hearings in washington in which minority democrats called twice as many witnesses as majority republicans. on the house floor every democratic amendment was made in order and considered. in fact, over the past five years we have held 18 hearings on various versions of this

bill. we consulted 60 water agencies throughout northern and central california including many in democratic districts. the bill was taken up again in the 113th congress. extensive negotiations took place between house and senate members. the fact is there are few issues in this congress that have been more thoroughly debated than those encompassed in this bill. and with that i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment 2 printed in house report 114-204. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mcnerney: mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-204

offered by mr. mcnerney of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 362, the gentleman from california mr. mcnerney, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mcnerney: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is simple and straightforward but addresses a critical issue affecting the economy, the environment and the health of the delta as well as other regions throughout the state. this amendment adds water hyacinth to be considered for a pilot project established by the bill, the water hyacinth is an extremely invasive weed that's taken over the delta. take a look at the picture. this channel is completely blocked over by the weed. it can double in size every 10 days. it has seeds that remain buried in sediment and remain viable for 20 years. it's difficult to remove mechanically and to manage through pesticides.

the result is what you see here in this picture. it clogs waterways preventing the movement of water through the delta. it negatively affects farmers, recreational opportunities and disrupts the national ecosystem. these effects have only been worsened by the drought. i represent the port of stockton. this is the third largest inland port in the nation. the hyacinth affects traffic in and out of the port preventing navigation of the channels at night because of ships that can't navigate between the weeds, the levees and smaller vessels. this causes unreasonable delays and costs importers approximately $200,000 in additional expenses per year. last year alone, the port had to remove more than two million tons of the plant. even stockton's christmas lighted boat parade had to be cancelled for the first time in its 35-year history. eradicating this invasive species will take a holistic approach involving stakeholders

at all levels. i heard from the marine owners, farmers environmental organizations and local communities on how the water hyacinth continues to impact their lives on a daily basis. i was fortunate enough to help secure $1 million in federal -- $1 million in federal funding to help an existing effort between federal, state and local partners focused on managing the water hein sith -- sigh sint. this is just the beginning. this amendment ensures that we continue building off the current work. i would like to thank my colleagues mr. garamendi, mr. desauliner, and mr. costa for joining me on this amendment, and i urge its adoption and now i'd like to yield one minute to my colleague mr. garamendi. mr. garamendi: mr. chairman, thank you, my colleague from the delta. this is but one small example of what we ought to be doing and that is working together to solve very, very complex

problems. unfortunately, the underlying legislation really does not -- is not the result of the kind of interaction that's necessary. mr. mcnerney and i represent the delta. that delta is as large as the westland's water district and it also happens to be the largest estuary on the western coast from alaska to chile. it is an absolutely essential element in the environment of the entire west coast of the united states. yet, the underlying legislation ignores the fact that those of us that represent this area have been no part of the legislation. if we work together, we can solve problems such as water hyacinth and the next amendment, which i'll be taking up. i want to commend mr. mcnerney for putting forth this amendment and hopefully beginning the interaction necessary to develop a proper water bill for all california. i yield back. mr. mcnerney: i thank my

colleague. at this time i'd like -- the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcnerney: i'd like to yield one minute to my colleague, mr. costa. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr.: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like -- mr. costa: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank my colleague for this amendment. water hyacinth is a problem that has impacted the operations of both the central valley water project as well as the state water project. this year as a result of water hyacinth infestation and pumping at the jones pumping plant was reduced significantly for periods of time that really resulted in the loss of water. local water contractors responded in the collaborative manner to help remove that infestation that we see there. over 89,000 cubic yards of hyacinth at a cost of almost $2 million to remove it to try to get the operations to continue.

. however another pump made up the difference. i want to support this amendment, it impacts not just cities boaters, recreationalists, but farm -- but farmers and the entire region. this is a good amendment and i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. mcnerney: i thank the gentleman and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does any member claim time in opposition. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment though i'm not opposed. the chair: without objection the gentleman is recognized.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i, too represent san joaquin valley along with mr. mcnerney, and i believe this is a solution we share to a problem in the delta. this native species is something that needs to be managed and is a welcomed amendment to this bill this amendment rightly focuses on the invasive plant that can have devastating impacts on fish and other organisms in the delta. mr. denham: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number three printed in house report 114-240.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three printed in house report 113-204 offered by -- report 114-204 offered by mr. garamendi of california. the chair: pursuant to house les lution 362, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi an a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: this amendment, like the previous amendment is simple but very important. we've heard the discussion from mr. mcnerney and supporters of his amendment about the water hyacinth and the invasive species that have plagued not just the california delta but other parts of the west. this amendment is also an important amendment. small but important. it deals with a way of providing a fish screen on the delta cross channels. a very important element in the california water system.

why this hasn't been done before i don't know. i live within a mile of the delta cross channels and i've often wondered why the agencies have not pursued a fish screen. they have to close the channel gates when the fish are in the river and thereby providing less water through the delta. this would simply move it along. and these two amendments are an example of what we ought to be doing. mr. mcnerney and i represent the delta. 700,000 acres. equal in size to the area of the principle proponents of the underlying legislation the westlands water district. both critical agricultural areas, both need water. the underlying legislation ignores the environmental needs and agricultural needs of they have delta and simply -- not

simply but in a complex way prorkvide a mechanism to take water out of the delta without regard to either the environmental or agricultural or community needs in the area. it's not going to pass. it should never become law. and it is an example of how not to solve california water problems. the way you solve california water problems are with amendments such as mr. mcnerney's or this amendment i'm putting forth and serious discussions between those of us that represent the delta. i'd also like to point out to my colleagues who are proponents of this bill that i represent 200 miles of the sacramento river from the very end of it that is at san francisco bay to an area 199. miles upriver. including virtually all the rice industry of california, of which there are some 600000 acres and

nearly half of that acreage is fallowed this year. so the drought isn't just about the impact on the san joaquin valley system which we've heard much debate this morning. it's also about the sacramento valley. north of the delta. in which the drought has had a major impact. california needs to work together in the immediate situation, which it is actually doing. the federal and state governments water policy through the department of interior and the bureau of reclamation, fish and wildlife agency state and federal government have done a yeoman's work, done extraordinary work stretching the water supplies of california. this without override that effort and make it impossible for them to continue. god help us if the drought goes

another year. if it could -- it could, and if it did, all that has been done in california over the last three years to stretch the water supplies would be pushed aside. we shouldn't do it that way. we should be working together. mr. huffman has a good piece of legislation that has already achieved statewide support. from water contractors. from those who understand the i wantry kacies of this system. we could do it. if we sat down together and that has not happened. for those of thause represent the delta and the north of the delta, we find this to be objectionable. and we find it to be rather foolish. there is a middle ground. but don't, as this bill does, push aside the environmental laws which are the only protections for the largest estuary system on the west coast of the western hemisphere. don't do that. why would you descroib -- why

would you destroy the salmon fisheries? why would you destroib 700,000 acres and the water supplies for the bay area? you shouldn't do that you don't need to do that. there are rational and reasonable ways to solve the california water problem. some of it is in this bill. the storage systems, good. well done. but don't do that in a way that pushes aside the environmental protections that provide the balance, not just for the environment, for the communities that are affected. don't do that. we can work together. just give us a chance to do so, which you have not thus far done. having no more time i suppose i must yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. denham: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. denham: thank you, mr. chairman.

the gentleman from california talks about a bill that he is not willing to support but yet he wants to amend a bill he says is going nowhere. the truth is, the bill is going somewhere. this bill is going to move off this floor and move into the senate. it is time for the senate to show some action. it is time for the two bodies to actually do what they're supposed to do and work together to find a solution for california. but to do nothing is criminal. to do nothing will put farms out of business, will create a much higher unemployment than seen anywhere else in the country and will devastate a food supply that feeds the rest of the nation and much of the world. now this amendment in particular has some problems with it. in conversations with the bureau of reclamation, they've not asked for this project. and they have no money identified for the project. i'm unaware of the states, the state of california's position as well. fish screens are hugely

expensive projects. they're subject to destruction under high flow events due to debris and restrict recreation. i'm concerned that this project is not even feasible. but what this project aims to do is to make sure that water is not transferred south of the delta. what many of my friends forget is i represent san joaquin county, mountain house, get zero allocation a community, not just farmland, is south of the delta. it actually has forced water. so do areas in san joaquin county that are south of the delta. this is not an us against them fight. this is a fight for the survival of california. and it's not just about an emergency transfer of water. it's about the future of california. do we want to have enough water for all of our residents?

do we want our number one industry agriculture to be a vibrant industry? we have the opportunity to have greater storage and we ought to have some commonsense solutions in the process. talk about wanting to save fish, why not get rid of the predator fish or at least fish those predator fish go out and harvest some of them so they're not eating 98% of the fish you say you're trying to help. there are commonsense solutions in here. that will allow us to have greater flexibility, greater storage, and a better plan for the future of california. we should not be wasting water and just allowing our fresh water to get pushed arbitrarily out to the ocean. this is sound environmental policy. this will help us in the future -- that will help us in the future and give us a negotiating point with the senate. republicans and democrats actually working together for a solution that helps us in california.

with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired, he's yielded back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. garamendi: i request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman from california has requested a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed thonings amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment 4 printed in house report 114-240. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lamalfa: i offer an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 114-204, offered by mr. lamalfa of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 362 the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa, and a member opposed each will control phi minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa: i'm pleased to offer this amendment with my neighbor to the north, mr. walden, which will provide for the bureau of reclamation this condition fers applicant status on these contractors ensuring they are included in endangered species act consultations that cowl affect operation of the water project they rely on. applicant status also ensures that information and alternative actions provided by the contractors must be considered when the bureau considers e.s.a. related changes. while the bureau has treated contractors in manner similar to applicants since the 1990's and

local indian tribes have invited contractors to provide information, the bureau hasn't granted them protections and input that full aply cabot status would provide. h.r. 2898 already provides -- i yield a moment to mr. denham of california. mr. denham: i believe the gentleman has two amendments today. mr. lamalfa: yes. this first is on the project. mr. denham: i yield back to the gentleman. mr. lamalfa: are the amendments out of order? ok. they're out of numerical order. mr. speaker i offer this amendment. on the sikes reds voir.

it will complete a surface area project study by aligning bill language with the m.o.u. signed by the bureau of reclamation. sikes reservoir has been studied for decades but they afwred to help fund the study's completion. they cannot determine which projects to invest in until the studies are complete. this is key to help prepare for future droughts and it would generate an additional 900,000 acre-feet of water during drought years. that's enough for 7.2 million people per year. this noncontroversial amendment helps to allow californians invest their own infrastructure, a laudable goal we should all support. i'm pleased to co-sponsor this amendment with my colleague, mr. garamendi. i reserve my time.

the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. denham: thank you mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition though i'm not -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition though i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. . mr. costa: this amendment updates the bill to be consistent with the memorandum of understanding between the bureau of reclamation and the sykes joint power authority. as been noted by speakers on both sides, california came together last year in a bipartisan overwhelming way to provide $7.5 billion for improving our water system, to provide more funding for the tools in our water toolbox to provide greater reliability throughout california. and $2.7 billion of that water

bond measure was set aside for water storage projects. this is one of the projects that can participate in that funding. i support this effort because increased storage capacity both surface as well as groundwater recharge, is absolutely necessary to provide the additional resiliency in california's water system. i support the sites reservoir of increasing the shasta reservoir, that dam would provide additional water supply as well as the extension of los vasqueros as well as the expansion of san luis reservoir which is allowed for in this legislation. as well as increased groundwater banking. all of these are part of the solution. we must expand the storage in the state to reduce the impacts of future droughts and population growth and therefore i support this amendment.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lamalfa: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. -- mr. duffy: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lamalfa: this helps align the language in 2898, the m.o.u. that the bureau of reclamation has put forward so we can expedite the studies for the sites reservoir project one that we needed for a long, long time and will be very helpful towards water solutions for california. with that i ask for the support of this very simple technical measure and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california, mr. huffman, is recognized. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment simply aligns the bill with the recently signed m.o.u. with the bureau of reclamation regarding these studies. we do not oppose it. it is consistent with an

earlier pop is i rider added to the energy and water appropriations bill. so contrary to some of the things we heard in this debate, i and other democrats are not standing in the way of these storage studies. the delta smelt and the environmental laws are not standing in the way of these storage studies. in fact, my own drought bill, h.r. 2983, provides crucial funding and direction to the bureau of reclamation to finish calfed feasibility studies that have the financing possible to be completed within the next 10 years. we do support finishing these studies. now, some of these projects may pencil out. but i think it's become clear over the many, many years that these studies have language wished and turned into zombie reservoirs because project proponents have not accounted how this financing will really work. many of these projects will not pencil out but it's high time we complete the studies, face the reality and get the information so we can move on

with real water solutions. and with that i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment 5 printed in house report 114-204. for what purpose does the gentleman from california, mr. calvert, seek recognition? mr. calvert: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-204 offered by mr. calvert of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 362 the gentleman from california, mr. calvert, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. calvert: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: mr. chairman h.r.

2898, we establish an oversight board for the central valley project restoration fund. what my amendment does is simple. it adds an additional conservation seat to the 11-member board which will provide parody between the environmental group and user group interest. power contractors, wildlife refuges, in addition to the economic impacts of water operations. so that the secretary of interior will receive recommendations that encompass a broad perspective. the reason for my amendment is also simple, to ensure that a more balanced and effective approach is being taken as the secretary of interior prioritizes spending levels on projects and programs carried out through the restoration fund. again in closing, my amendment strikes a better balance between conservation and user groups' interests on the 11-member board and will help to ensure that the annual surcharges water and power

users contribute will be spent on the most effective methods in habitat restoration and environmental mitigation. i reserve my time. happy to yield to the gentlelady. mrs. lummis: we support the amendment, mr. chairman, and commend the author for offering it. i yield back. mr. calvert: i thank the gentlelady. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california, mr. huffman, rise? mr. huffman: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition though we do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my colleague for his concern. this by itself is not harmful but it's important to acknowledge it doesn't come close to curing the problems with this bill that are in fact very harmful to fish and wildlife. the gentleman's amendment seeks to provide cover in some ways to proponents of this bill who are now coming under fire from

california waterfowl association and other sportsmen groups because this bill hurts migratory birds and waterfowl. it would eliminate water supplies for california migratory waterfowl. other sportsmen groups oppose. trout unlimited has spoken out against the bill because it would weaken protections for steelhead and salmon. so while i do not oppose this bill it is important not to suggest that this bill is somehow good for or supported by hunters or sportsmen groups. it is. and with that i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from fresno. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. costa, is recognized for one minute. mr. costa: i thank the gentleman for yielding. this is a very legitimate concern that my colleagues are dealing with in terms of how funds are being spent by the restoration programs and how we provide support for the efforts to provide more accountability

and improve the transparency of the expenditures of the fund. and i appreciate the support of my colleagues' amendment to improve the makeup of the advisory board which i think is important. however, i think that adding a one more waterfowl representative needs to be done to try to provide additional balance in terms of the representation of the various interests on the board. let me finally say, i represent grasslands, a large part of grasslands district which is the largest part of the pacific flyway in terms of almost 200,000 acres of contiguous wetlands. and they have raised some issues as it relates to this legislation and we are going to work those out. because in fact that is a very important part of the pacific flyway. in addition to that, the flexibility that we create in the underlying bill really is in part to ensure we do provide water, even the limited water available so that we can maintain this important habitat. i yield back the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california, mr. huffman, reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. calvert, is recognized. mr. calvert: i thank my colleagues for supporting this amendment. it's a simple amendment. this is a process, as my friend from california has mentioned. this, after we move this bill forward today will have the opportunity hopefully to conference with the senate. hopefully they can pass a bill in the senate and we can do something good for the state of california. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. calvert. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment 6 printed in house report 114-204. for what purpose does the gentleman from california, mr.

costa, seek recognition? mr. costa: thank you, mr. chairman, i rise for an amendment that is before the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 114-204 offered by mr. costa of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 362 the gentleman from california mr. costa, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. costa: thank you. mr. chairman and the ranking member, since the early 1990's, the federal and state lawmakers and regulators have made a number of policy choices to implement the act of the endangered species and the clean water act and the central valley project improvement act. all of these have had good intentions.

from the trinity river to the shasta river -- reservoir, to the san francisco bay delta and up to the san joaquin river, about 3.5 million acre-feet of central valley project and state water project has been as a result of that -- those acts rededicated for environmental management purposes. the central valley project improvement act alone since its enactment, has resulted in over 17 million acre-feet of water being reprioritized for different needs and for different purposes. it's important to note that this doesn't mean that the water in reprioritization doesn't continue to serve multiple purposes within the system because it does. but it does mean that use has been prioritized so that in fact it must meet environmental objectives over that of human needs which are a distant second to the environmental uses of this waters as a result of the passage of those previous acts.

these changes, i believe, have harmed a large number of californians, including those from small, rural and often disadvantaged communities that i represent as well as to the larger areas that are dependent upon this water supply, whether we talk about santa clara and silicon valley or los angeles and the metropolitan water district. approximately 25 million people and seven of the nation's top 10 agricultural counties have seen their water supply diminish and their water cost escalate over the last 20 years. that's a fact. and as my colleagues say, you know, facts are hard to dispute. the increased cost has been there and the reduction of the water supply is in fact as a result of this. many of the farmers i serve have seen their water supplies diminish to 40% of their long-term average and have received no surface water -- no surface water for the last two

years. communities that i represent have had their drinking wells go dry, leaving towns without a water supply for drinking or bathing. these are incredibly harmful impacts to a very simple question. we ought to know the benefits. has society benefited from the policy changes to dedicate the water for these important environmental purposes? like preventing the extinction of species, which none of us want to do. the answer i'm sad to say is, it seems to have not the impact it was intended because the species continue to decline. unfortunately, though notwithstanding efforts within the federal agencies the state agencies, the national academy of sciences we don't really know. we don't really know because we don't have an accurate reporting or accounting of how in-stream flows is used and what objective is expected to be achieved by them and what was achieved by those flows. i would feel a little better

knowing we are increasing the species the salmonoid in california, notwithstanding the loss of water but in fact the salmonoid have continued to decline. dedication of millions of acre-feet of water and the expenditure of billions of dollars has resulted in water supply situation that has never been worse for california. likewise, the condition of the species to which we have been dedicated so much has never been so much at risk. the latest delta smelt population index is zero, and the status of protected salmon is in serious doubt. while the extension of these species isn't probable given the hatchery fish population the potential loss of wild populations is of grave concern to all of us. one thing that the drought has achieved to make operational priorities of the project abundantly clear is that first, priority of the projects besides this co-sharing is flood control. god, i would pray that it would

flood in california. . love to have what they're having in texas. but second priority is salmon management which is problematic as the result of the drought. and third is protecting water quality. i want my friends in the bay area to drink good, fresh water. and finally any possible deliveries to communities for the refuge wildlife that inclouds grasslands and other refuges as well as our farms. our farms that produce the food. i am introducing this amendment to create at least some accountability and transparency in the environmental management efforts under way. so that we can better understand and so we can measure what is working and what isn't working. and that's why this amendment is important. i ask that it be adopted for all the reasons i have stated and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. does any member seek time in opposition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. costa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 114-204. for what purpose does the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa, seek recognition? mr. lamalfa: i have another amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed if house report 114-204 offered by mr. lamalfa of california. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa, and a member omissouried each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa texas thank you mr.

chairman. s the -- mr. lamalfa: thank you mr. chairman. this is the much-anticipated amendment i'm offering be mr. walden. it confers applicant status on those contractors involved in the project that could affect operations of the water project they rely upon. aapply cant status also ensures that information and alternative actions provided by contractors must be considered when the bureau considers e.s.a. related operational changes. while the bureau has its own -- has in its own words treated the contractors in a manner similar to applicants since the 1990's and local tribes have invited contractors to provide information, they have not been granted the protections full applicant status would provide. h.r. 2890 already provides applicant status for the central valley and this ensures that all federal water contractors in the region receive equal legal

protections. i would like now to yield to mr. walden of oregon. mr. walden: i thank the gentleman for yielding time and working with me on this amendment as well. which will assist our climate project farmers. as you pointed out there's a long history of water issues in this basin and there's much work to be done. frankly a basin-wide long-term solution is what's needed. while we're working toward that solution, these issues remain. in the interim it's critical that we pass this amendment to simply formalize the role of climate project irrigate groirs giving them applicant status. the climate project contractors have existing contracts with the bureau of reclamation. they are directly affected by reclamation consultations with the u.s. fish and wildlife service and national marine fishery service and in recent years, as you mentioned, the climate project contractors have provided input to the section 7 consultations through the information. i'd like to thank the climate tribes, pesslerble chairman

gentry for working with the contractors through this process. passing this amendment would formalize the practice that has been occurring and ensure the project contractors can continue this process in the future. to legislatively designate the project contractors is having the role of applicants would not change the bureau of reclamations to prepare biological opinions. i would ask my colleagues to join us in formalizing a process that's been sort of informal along the way and inaccident at time an give the consistency there that's important to continue the discussions that are under way in the basis. -- basin. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa: i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california, mr. huffman, seek recognition? mr. huffman: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. huffman: i'm the other neighbor on this climate trinity

water system. i didn't have the benefit of working with my colleagues on this legislation. my hope as we go forward is that we could be a little more neighborly and try to talk with each other and work together on this system that affects our mutual constituents. but mr. chairman, as if the underlying bill which includes numerous assaults on the endangered species act is not bad enough, unfortunately this is an amendment that would make it even worse. it plays favorites amongst stake holders, elevating agriculture above all else at the expense of the environment and other cultural and economic interests. fazz the clite mat -- climate water contractors don't have things god enough with taxpayer subsidized water and zero interest loans this amendment seen to give them special that the tuss and significantly more leverage in the endangered species act consultation process. as long as the project is in place, the bureau of reclamation has a duty to manage it for the benefit of all stake holders.

that's important. the interest of the water contractors are certainly no more legitimate than those of the climate tribes for whom endangered fish are part of their cultural heritage, nor are they more important than the interest of commercial fishermen who generate hundreds of millions for the economy and continue to wait patiently for the restoration of fish stocks vital to their livelihoods. in addition to being a bad deal for describes and fishermen this is yet another attempt by house republicans to drive the extinction of american fish and wildlife one species at a time. let's be honest. giving agricultural interests privileged status in quote, helping to determine the fate of endangered coe hossa monoand endangered -- and other endangered species is not good. it is pastime for my colleagues to stop blaming the endangered species act for all their ills. fish did not cause the drought

and killing them won't make it go away. the bet esolution is to make water use for sustainable for californians and the environment they cherish and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lamalfa: reclaiming my time. it's a little harder to be neighborly when the facts get twisted around and the intent of the bill is misconstrued. indeed this has been a collaborative process with the bureau, the tribes inviting information from those stake holders that are the water contractors this would confer a status upon them to make them pullly at the take as an applicant. it doesn't change the allocation or any other factor of the -- of those water contractors. i'd like to yield to mr. walden. mr. walden: as somebody involved in these issues going back to 1999, aye worked with tribes, i've worked with irgators to

improve fish passage so i take offense to the kind of language you're using here on the floor because we've done a lot of good to put fish screens in, to help provide survivalability for the sickersing we've done a lot of good things. i welcome you to the house, i welcome you to work with us on these issues but i have to tell you it's a little offensive in your comments. mr. lamalfa: i yield. mr. huffman: we could start working together on the climate restoration settlement and moving forward that legislation. i hope we can begin to talk together. we have legitimate interests on both sides and at both ends of this important watershed. mr. lamalfa: i'm saying there's a better way to have this discussion than hurling -- mr. walden: i'm saying there's a better way to have this discussion than hurling insults. i'm open to having discussions with you as well. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa, controls the time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamalfa: the e.s.a. requires taos use the best available science and information and having all the stake holders at the table such as having full applicant status for the waters users and having them as an applicant gets more information and more input from everybody that would be affected by possible e.s.a. decisions. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california mr. lamalfa has the remaining time. mr. lamalfa: thank you again mr. chairman. -- we would love to work in a collaborative, neighborly process around here but when the rhetoric flies that accuses us and accuses waters users that have had a promise made to them by the federal government it does make it difficult. it's the kind of thing that the american people as they view the

operations on tv realy get tired of. so i would be one that would love to cooperate and get a result on but on this amendment we need this help for the contractors to have a fair seat at the table. i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. huffman: i request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 114-204. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 114-204 offer by mr. grijalva of arizona.

the chair: pursuant ho house resolution 362, the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you mr. speaker. before i speak to my amendment i want to acknowledge the gentlelady from california, mrs. napolitano, for her input on this amendment. and for her long advocacy for water reuse recycling and conservation and for emphasizing that we need a near term water creation strategy along with a long-term sustainable strategy. 2898 is not that long-term, sustainable strategy. californians and others across the west need drought relief now. the proponents of this legislation know that it will not provide that immediate relief. they also know their bill will never become law. so why are we here today wasting

everybody's time simply because house republicans are not going to miss an opportunity to attack the endangered species act and the national environmental policy act. the allegation that environmental laws have restricted dam construction is patently false. in fact, it was president reagan who first sought to help curb the deficit by turning off the tap of easy federal money that funded multibillion dollar boondoggles and pork barrel dam projects. building new dams takes forever because it doesn't make economic sense without heavy government subsidies. instead of flushing taxpayer dollars we should be investing in projects that recycle wastewater, create a reuse and provide immediate water supplies. 87% of california's weat worst, hundreds of billions of gallons of water that could supply the needs of agriculture and people is lost to the pacific ocean

each year because we do not have enough water recycling projects in place. this is literally an ocean of missed opportunity. my amendment creates new water for the people of california. if republicans were serious about solving this drought problem, they would have written a bill that creates new water. sadly, they have not. instead, they have written a bill that uses a very -- a very real crisis to attack e.s.a. and nepa. this bill insults people who are suffering through the historic drought and it's just the latest example of house republicans blocking public participation in government and driving the extinction of american fish and wildlife one species at a time. i agree with my colleagues, this is a manmade drought. manmade because we are not conserving and recycling water that we have. and because we are wasting time in a bill instead of planning to increase water supplies in the short term and a longtime

sustainable strategy. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming seek recognition? mrs. lummis: i rise to climb time in opposition to the amendment. -- the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. chairman. i now yield time to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman, i said earlier this is a time of choosing. the democrats offer us a vision of scarcity and astronomical prices. we've been trying it their way. it doesn't end well. our bill serves a different vision. abundant water in hydroelectricity at affordable prices and the prosperity and the quality of life that means for every american. water is plentiful but it's unevenly distributed over time. we build res. vors to store

water -- reservoirs to store water in wet years so we have it in dry ones. we stopped building reservoirs more than a million acre-feet years ago because of the policies imposed upon us by the same voices we hear raised against this bill. the sacramento river is bigger than the colorado yet we store 70 million acre-feet on the colorado and only 10 million acre-feet on the sacramento. we will not solve our water shortage until we build nor dams. that's what our bill does. this amendment would scrap this vision of abundance for more of the same. not more water, only more conservation, more recycling more doing with less. conservation is important in a drought but conservation is the management of a shortage. managing a shortage does not solve a shortage. only abundance can do that. when we confuse conservation with supply, as these voices

from the left always do in a real drought we discover we've already played that card and we no longer have it available to stretch supplies in an emergency. new dams not only mean more abundant water for the west, they provide clean cheap reliable hydroelectricity. they provide flood control to protect regions that would otherwise be inundated and uninhabitable. they ensure year-round flows of water to help habitats at that would be desiccated in drought and devastated by flood. all of these benefits would be sacrificed on the environmental left by this amendment. supply or shortage, that is the question. this bill opens up a new era of supply. this amendment takes us further down the road of coping with shortage, not as a temporary stopgap, but as a way of life. we've had a taste of that way of life. we've watched our lawns turn brown, we watched our water

bills skyrocket, we watched businesses shut down, we watched thousands of farm workers thrown out of work. we've seen food lines in the most fertile agriculture region of the west and we've had enough. we seek a new future where water and hydroelectricity is abundant, where grocery shelves have full, where water police aren't knocking on the door because we've taken too long in the shower and where our lawns and gardens are green again. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you very much mr. speaker. "the los angeles times" in their editorial, the g.o.p. water bill in congress should be rejected, was entitled, it compared the two pieces of legislation, mr. huffman's h.r. 2983, and the bill that we are -- that's on the floor today, 2898. the concussion was that we needed a commonsense, comprehensive approach.

throughout the huffman bill, and i quote, it's starkly different and frankly much smarter. focusing on updating water policies and practices that today are firmly rooted in outdated mid 20th century knowledge and technology. it's the comprehensive approach that my side of the aisle seeks and this legislation before us today does nothing. i want to speak on another important aspect of the legislation which is the issue of relief, and providing a near-term relief i think is essential. that is not to stall a long-term solution but to provide the relief that everybody has talked about that california and the central valley need. central valley has been described as the salad bowl of america, the delicious crops that are grown there consumed by americans that are low cost and then an occasional reference to the people that

day in day out labor to pick those crops and put them on the tables of the american people. the farm workers. references to their dire economic and living conditions that they find themselves in right now and the conclusion is we need to proceed to pass 2898 to help these farm workers and their families. i agree. farm workers and their families must be a priority for relief. h.r. 2898 does -- doesn't provide any relief to farm workers and their families. farm workers need an investment . they need an investment in education they need an investment in housing, they need an investment in livable incomes, they need -- they need to work on the concentrated poverty that we find. those areas in farm working communities one of the highest unemployment rates in california before the drought,

they are a high poverty rate now with the drought and if we want to change the course of history, we need to deal with that issue. we need to continue to restrict pesticide use that harms humans and we need to have working conditions and opportunity available to farm workers. you know, farm workers don't need crocodile tears. they need relief, they need attention and they need investment. and they need a relief that is near term and not one dominated by technology and outmoded strategies that will not bring that relief to them. we should be about creating opportunity, creating immediate relief and helping those families, not only in the near term but in the long term, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. mrs. lummis: i reclaim my time and yield the remainder of it to the gentleman from california, mr. costa.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. costa: i thank the gentlewoman from wyoming for yielding the time. i'm opposed to this amendment not because it provides additional water for reclamation and reuse which i support, but i'm opposed to this amendment because it prevents any of these funds from being used for storage. groundwater and surface storage water. and as i said earlier californians, by almost a 2/3 -- over a 2/3 vote supported a significant bond measure last year for that water storage both surface and groundwater. this amendment would prevent that from occurring. but let me also talk a little bit about the narrative that's been coming from some of my colleagues that i just firmly reject about this legislation and the underlying bill. this does not -- this does not amend the endangered species act. it does not provide any kind of a rollback of the endangered

species law. that is just false. it does not impact the water quality of the delta or the bay. and you know why? because we have a state law in california under decision 1641 that requires the state water board to monitor the level of salinity in the delta and to protect the water quality for people in the bay area who derived their water from that source. so how could this legislation impact decision for 1641? it simply cannot. and as it relates to the operational flexibility, which has been alluded to as the great problem in this legislation, much of that flexibility that we've been urging over four years has begun to take place in the last year or two. and what this legislation is take at that flexibility that they've finally begun to do and to put that in practice and codify it in law. that's what this legislation

does. and i must say that under the constraints of this legislation with this greater flexibility, the secretary of the interior still has the ability to provide the justification, in fact, if she feels this flexibility cannot be implemented. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. costa: those protections are there. that's what this legislation does. i urge your support. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not -- mrs. lummis: i on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 114-204 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 3 by mr.

garamendi of california, amendment number 7 by mr. lamalfa of california, amendment number 8 by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-204 by the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, on which further proceed prgs postponed and on which the -- proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-204 offered by mr. garamendi of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 182 and the nays are 236. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in house report 114-204 by the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 114-204 offered by mr. la -- mr. lamalfa of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 246, the nays are 172. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on

amendment number 8 printed in house report 114-204 by the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 114-204 offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: a recordeded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment in the nay touche of a substitute as amended $-- amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule the committee rises. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 2898 and pursuant to house resolution 362, i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2898 and pursuant to

house resolution 362 reports the bill back to the house with an aamendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to provide drought relief in the state of california and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members will remove their conversation from the house floor. the house will be in order.

the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman quail phis. the clerk: mr. bera of california moves to recommit the bill h.r. 2898 to the natural resources committee with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. after section 610 insert the following, section 611, protecting the supply of water for drinking and to fight wilderness, wildfires. under the provisions of this act, the secretary shall ensure there is an adequate supply of water one, for residential drinking water that is safe and not tainted with arsenic salt, nitrate from fertilizers industrial chemicals, or harmful -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. the gentleman from utah mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent

that we considered as read and suspend the reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house will be in order. members are requested to please remove conversations from the house floor. the house will be in or. -- order. the house will be in order. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. bera: mr. speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, this bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. mr. speaker, this amendment is simple. it ensures that we have safe drinking water for our constituents and enough water to fight wildfires. it's been hot and dry in california. we are now in the fourth straight year of drought

conditions and, in fact, 95% of our state has reached severe drought status. this is a problem. we are talking about families. we are talking about farmers, small business owners who are feeling the pain of this prolonged drought every day. it's a crisis and in a crisis everyone has to come together to work together to find solutions that work for all of us. with the bill offered today yet again undermines the efforts that we are taking in california to work together. and instead of allowing washington d.c., politicians to pick winners and losers and pit communities against each other. this bill creates no water. it does not solve this crisis and that's a profblet look at this picture. this is my home district, fulsome lake. this is what it looked like last summer and this summer it's worse. in fact, fulsome lake right now is 42% capacity by august it's

expected to reach the lowest point in recorded history. over half a million people depend on fulsome lake for their drinking water. we owe it to the families of fulsome, fair oaks roseville, and across the state to work together to better manage the water that we have. as currently written, this bill would jeopardize access to safe water. as water supplies decrease, residential drinking water becomes more concentrated. it risks contamination of higher concentrations of nitrates, arsenic, industrial chemicals, and harmful algaes. we owe it to the people in our state to make sure when they turn on their taps they have safe drinking water. let's work together to find comprehensive solutions, long-term solutions to secure their access to storage. we've got to work together, democrats and republicans, not pit northern california against southern california. i urge my colleagues on both

sides of the aisle to give this motion their full support and i'll yield the balance of my time to my colleague from southern california, mr. peters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. peters: thank you, mr. speaker. across the west and particularly in california we are in the fourth year of prolonged drought that is placing us at increased risk for wildfires. the underlying bill would harm not just one committee or -- community or industrial sector. but would undercut years of existing water policy and put communities like mine in san diego in more danger. the images of depleted reservoirs, lakes, and streams drying up abound with millions of dead trees little literal our -- littering our forrests. for those who know fire, fuel is all they see. we are in the midst of what we expect to be -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the house will be in order. members are requested to please remove their conversation from the house floor. the house will be in order.

the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. peters: just since january 1, california fire officials have responded to more than 3,300 wildfires, which is 1,000 more than the average over the last five years. the lake fire that started a month ago has consumed an area of national forest roughly the size of san francisco. in the dozens of wildfires that eerupted in san diego last may burned thousands of acres and destroyed 65 homes. projections show that the cost of fighting wildfires this year could reach up to $2.1 billion far above the roughly $400 million -- $450 million spept annually in the 1990's. it's not just money at stake. two of the most deadly wildfires in california history the witch and cedar fires occurred in san diego and killed 17 people. this is also a matter of life and death. this bill does not make it rain. no one can do that. it simply undermines the state of california's water policies to move waterway from one set of communities and into different

ones. the motion to recommit requires that as we make changes to western water allocations, we ensure there is enough water in res. vires, lakes, and community supplies to make sure wildfires can be you fought when they occur, which they certainly with will. it also ensures we honor the existing tribal water rights and protect the health of those communities. i urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit and to oppose the underlying legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: like mr. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the house will be in or. members will please remove their conversation from the house floor. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: it is only i, you don't have to be in order for that.

mr. speaker this is a procedural motion. obviously if it was a serious one we could have considered it any time in committee or on the floor in amendment process. but it's a procedural motion that is also somewhat flawed. in this particular one it mentions that nothing will happen until the secretary shall ensure that something happens. unfortunately, in this provision of the bill they don't define secretary. so i'm not sure which secretary would have to define something. it could be the secretary of my office if you really wanted it that way. it provides -- we are going to have water for drinking and wildfires. now, some of you may remember that last week we actually had a forest bill in here which provided for wildfires. we gave the money authority, we gave them the tools. it passed with a bipartisan vote but some of those who are our friends weren't voting for this one and won't vote for that one either.

if you want drinking water, that he -- that's what the base bill does. the entire purpose of this bill is to emphasize the fact that in this drought we are trying to help people. the goal is to get water to people. so they can work in an area that has a 50% unemployment area, they can provide food for people it's important to all of us. not as important for me as it used to be, but still important for all of us. we actually provide jobs for people in these areas where they desperately need that work, we are doing it. this is about people. this is moving water so people can actually be helped. and that's what the underlying bill has to do and the procedural issues that we are trying to hold up this process they don't actually help people. they may help the process, but they don't actually help people. we need a policy more than the opponents of this bill have, which is let's pray for rain and hope something happens. we need to do what our pioneer ancestors told us to do and take the water we have and save it

and store it and that's what the underlying bill does. not just for california, but for the rest of the west. for all of us where we have these same types of situations. you can vote for the underlying bill, realizing you're helping people, good grief 2008, we found water on marches -- mars, we could find water for people here in the west. vote no on the motion to recommit. support the underlying bill. let's set this bill going through the system so we can do something good for the people of this country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have t the motion is not adopted. mr. bera: i ask for the recorded yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: vorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20,

this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 183, the nays are 239 with zero answering present. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

the bill is passed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. -- those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 245, the nays are 176. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of h.r. 2898 the clerk be

authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, cross references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the house in amending the bill. including striking the instructions in line 20 and inserting after line 19 an amendment number 7. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous donent -- consent to speak out of order for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come and thereafter. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i now yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. mr. speaker, on monday, no votes are expected in the house. on tuesday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative

business. votes will be postponed until 6:30. on wednesday and thursday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business, last votes of the week are expected to no -- expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. in addition the house will consider h.r. 1734, the improving coal combustion residual regulation act, sponsored by representative david mckinley. this bill is essential to protect and create jobs. if we do not act, the e.p.a. will replace the existing successful state-based regulatory program with harmful new regulations that will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and result in billions of dollars in burdensome costs for job creators. the house will also consider

h.r. 1599, the safe and accurate food labeling act sponsored by representative mike pompeo. this bipartisan bill will ensure uniformed national labeling of foods from genetically engineered plants, by addressing the patchwork of conflicting labeling laws, we will fix the growing problem of inconsistent and confusing information for consumers. . finally, the house is expected to consider the conference report for the fiscal year 2016 national defense authorization act, and i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information with respect to the legislation for next week. as the gentleman knows we have now passed six appropriation bills. last week consider of the interior bill was postponed. it the gentleman and mr. rogers have both made representations that they hope to do all 12

appropriation bills. can the gentleman tell me whether or not you did not announce any appropriation bills on the schedule for next week, can the gentleman tell me whether or not he expects to bring additional appropriation bills to the floor prior to the august break? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. yes, it is our intention to get back to the appropriations process as soon as possible. as the gentleman does know there are some very serious and sensitive issues involved. we are in the midst of a constructive and bipartisan conversation on how we can resolve these issues. i'll be sure to keep the members updated as the appropriation bills are scheduled for continued consideration. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment. particularly in terms of the willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion. as the gentleman -- as majority leader knows, there is on his side of the aisle and on our side of the aisle a great concern that the pre--02

allocations to the appropriations committee are insufficient to meet their responsibilities. mr. rogers, as you know, chairman of the appropriations committee, member of your side of the aisle, from kentucky, has characterized the sequestration numbers as unrealistic and ill-advised. the senate has not passed any appropriation bills, as the gentleman knows. it is my hope and i would like to ask the majority leader whether he contemplates any bipartisan discussions with reference to how we might come to an agreement so that appropriation bills could, in fact, be enacted, sent to the president, and signed by the president. the president, as you know, sent down a budget which was paid for but which had defense numbers at the numbers that your side of the aisle used by utilizing

overseas contingency operation funds to bridge the gap between the sequester number and the president's number. my question to you is that is there any contemplation either before we break or shortly after we come back, because october 1 will be on us very very quickly, to have bipartisan discussions ala ryan murray to get to a number we can agree on and pass appropriation bills and have conversations and send them to the president and be signed hopefully before october 1, but if not before october 1, certainly before december 18. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and his continuing question throughout the months on this. it is still our intention on this side of the aisle to get our business done, uphold the current law which is in place.

i know you and i have had many debates back and forth we know the sequestration started in the white house and we continue to play by what the law states today and move our bills in a bipartisan manner with a very open process on the floor where any member can bring an amendment up and we'll continue to use that process as we move forward. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. the majority leader, mr. speaker regularly brings up that sequester started in the white house. he knows i very severely disagree with that. and he voted for a cut, cap, and balance act which had in its -- in that bill, which no democrat i think, voted for it sequester . and it was passed five days before our republican friends, mr. speaker alleged that mr. lieu segged suggested that to mr. reed as a -- suggested that to mr. reid as a way we could

get by the house's refuse you will -- refusal up to that point in time extended which meant we couldn't pay our bills. i don't think that's very useful in discussing how we get by this loggerhead that we have met on the appropriations process. i served on the appropriations committee for 23 years. before i became a leader. we did pass bills. not always on time, but we had an ability, republicans and democrats working on the appropriations committee, working in the congress, to get our bills done. mr. speaker i don't know whether you recall i presume you will recall, that when we got to a similar impasse mr. ryan the then chairman of the budget committee, miss murray then chairwoman of the budget committee in the senate, got together and came up with a -- some figures that we could agree on in a bipartisan basis.

until that time, we had the same kind of scenario that we are now confronted with. mr. speaker it is my view that unless we have such a meeting of the minds we are going to put this country in another crisis of our own making. we democrats are prepared to enter into some sort of an agreement consistent with hal rogers believes we can get to a realistic and advised compromise not this unrealistic and ill-advised, mr. rogers' words, republican chairman of the appropriations committee, not mine and if we don't do so, when we get to september 30 or we get to december 18 let's not wring our hands and say how did this happen? we'll know exactly how it happened. it will have happened because we refused to sit down as the

majority leader said a few minutes ago in a bipartisan way to do the people's business in a responsible collegial way which we can get to an agreement so the bills can be passed. i would hope -- and i think this argument about who's responsible for sequestration clearly we have a different point of view. a bill that passed before the suggestion was made by jack lew so we could get by the impasse and america has to pay its bills is not very useful. mr. leader, let me go to another subject. you moved on two occasions to refer to the house administration committee legislation which related to the use of the confederate battle flag. that -- both of those issues are now pending in the house administration committee. one has been there for some three weeks now. can the gentleman tell me whether there is any suggested action by the committee whether there had been any hearings scheduled, and whether or not we may see that legislation brought

to the floor at any time in the foreseeable future? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. just to clarify before i answer your other questions. i am concerned about what the rest of the summer looks like. a lot of my concern stems from what i hear on the other side of the aisle, especially in the senate side. as the gentleman knows for his years of working for more than two decades on appropriations, the appropriation process we have today is the most open this house has ever seen. never in the history while you were in the appropriation committee was it as open in the process that any member from any side of the aisle could just offer an amendment. not even prewritten not even a closed amendment. but your comments about sequester, what aim -- i'm really concerned about is the comments of senator schumer, senator reid he was going to have the summer of the shut down, the destruction, he was

going to shut everything down, i'm concerned on some of your comments that leading in that direction i don't want to go there. i want to finish our work as we have been doing here. and history can't rewrite it. bob woodward respected journalist as we all know from his days back to watergate today his price of politics, he wrote of the time and history. sequester was not debated here on this floor created on this floor. not even on the senate as well. you can read it in his book. it was created in the white house of this administration. it is the law of the land. we will uphold the law of the land and do our work based upon those numbers. now, the question you had before me was dealing with what we referred to, house administration. i have met with the chair and i have met with members on your side of the aisle. we have nothing scheduled for next week, but we are currently working towards solving this, to me a very serious and sensitive issue and i look forward to

getting it done and working with you to make it happen. mr. hoyer: i appreciate the fact that we might be bringing something to the floor that we can express the opinion of this house. as the house and senate in south carolina expressed its opinion, it surely is appropriate for this house of representatives representing the values of our country, sworn to uphold our constitution, that stands for equality of all that we can express ourselves and take appropriate action. i appreciate the gentleman's view. i have great respect for mr. woodward. mr. woodward shortly after that book came out i called him he came into my office, we had a discussion about that representation. i will tell the gentleman that i believe mr. woodward was incorrect. he did not have information i gave him. i don't mean that he necessarily says he's incorrect, but there is no doubt when you want to talk about history, you passed a bill five days before the

suggestion was made by jack lew, which presumably coming out of the white house, to mr. reid, the majority leader, five days before that, you passed on this floor a bill which was called cut cap and balance which had sequester as your fallback policy. so you're right, you can't change history. that is history. the gentleman, i said that a number of times, the gentleman has not corrected me. i presume therefore he believes that i'm accurate in that representation of the timing. but very frankly that history is irrelevant. what is relevant, as the gentleman and i i think both agree, if we don't get to an agreement on a number that is as we did in ryan-murray, we have done this before. we have done this before. my view is we did it because you didn't want to have your members vote on legislation that had

numbers that were draconian before the election, but that may be only my personal perspective. but the fact of the matter is, the american people expect us to get their work done. getting their work done at minimum means funding the government at appropriate levels. and again i have said that mr. rogers does not believe the see quester. i believe you it's the law of the land. i think it's wrong. it's bad laufment it was not a law intended to go into effect. it went into effect simply because the supercommittee that was established in that same legislation couldn't come out with a solution. and 13 months the congress couldn't come out with a solution. therefore on january 1 2014, we were confronted with this draconian, ill-conceived numbers, according to mr. rogers. let's not be confronted with those numbers 60 days from now on october 1 where we are unable to do our business.

so i would urge my friend to -- i would be glad to work with him toward that end. we just passed a bill, mr. leader which i voted for we passed on a bipartisan basis the the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time of my members voted for t. the majority of your members voted for it, a highway bill. it was, however, i know on our side and i know in discussions with you your feeling as well, that it is not what we ought to be doing. what we ought to be doing is pass a long-term, at least six-year re-authorization bill for the highway program so that governors, mayors, county executives, local officials contractors construction workers would all have some confidence that there would be a revenue stream to fix our roads repair our bridges and build roads where they are needed.

can the gentleman tell me whether he believes that there is a plan to get to the -- i know he and i discussed it, but a plan to get to before the december 18 date that the present bill calls for a long-term highway re-authorization? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank my friend for yielding. i thank him for his work and help in passing the highway bill this week. the gentleman knows nobody in this house wants to pass a short-term highway bill. we want certainty. we want to make sure the money goes the furthest and most efficient and effective way. the reason why we are going to a short-term december 18 because it is our plan and our intention together to be able to find the resources to have a highway bill that can be five years. and it is our intention to be able to have that. we have a plan, i believe, working towards and the first step was moving the highway to

december 18th bill, and all we have next is to pass the senate. they pass our highway bill, we'll be in the right place prepared to have it done before december, five year that we can all work together in a bipartisan manner and have done. i yield back. mr. hoyer: io hope we do that. in the short-term, however, we have done another item which we have not re-authorized, that's the ex-port import bank. senator mcconnell believes that that has the votes in the senate and he believes the highway bill that we just sent them is a vehicle to add that export-import bank proposal to, and my presumption is it will be in that bill when it comes back to us. . hopefully it will come back within the next few days because of course the highway authorization ends at the end of this month. in which case there will be no authorization to spend money on the highway program. can the gentleman tell me whether or not, if that comes back, that that will be on the floor? i've heard some discussion

about the fact that the speaker says it will be on the floor but it would be -- the export-import bank would be open to amendment. can the gentleman tell me whether or not there are any plans along those lines? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding to me one more time. the gentleman's well aware of how i feel about the ex-im bank, export-import, we have a difference of opinion. i am one who has always believed in the principle that you should just deal with the subject that's before you. we have passed the highway bill. the best advice i can give to the senate, it is a clean highway bill to december 18. to pass a clean highway bill and move it to the president. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i understand that's the gentleman's desire. i know he's opposed to the ex-im bank re-authorization. as you know, we passed it in a bipartisan fashion when mr. cantor was the majority leader. the gentleman voted for it.

he's changed his mind. that's certainly -- many of us do that from time to time. but my question to him is, if they don't do what the gentleman suggests, a clean highway bill, and they send it back as is apparently mr. mcconnell's, leader mcconnell's', thought that they will do, consistent with his representation to the senator from washington state and others, if they add the ex-im bank to that bill and it comes back, i know the gentleman's reluctant to speculate, but we have very, very short period of time left in this session before the august break. does he believe that if it comes back and is in the highway bill that we would make the export-import bank a portion of that bill at least open to amendment? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. if i just may correct the gentleman. it took the liberty of saying

whether i -- he took the liberty of saying whether i changed to my mind. i did vote for the ex-im bank two years ago. but i voted for an ex-im bank that had reform in it. i did not see that reform. i did not change my mind, i kept my principle. the same principle that i have is my best advice to the senate. i know you want to talk hypotheticals and i know our colloquy is about next week. none of that is scheduled for next week. but to the gentleman and to the senate, my best advice for them is to pass our clean highway bill and send it to the president. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, the problem with that suggestion, ma the -- the majority leader makes is, the export-import bank will be out of business. and if that happens, speaker boehner has said, it's going to adversely effect jobs in america. it will adversely affect the ability of small, medium and large businesses to sell our goods overseas. by people working here in america. the export-import bank is about jobs. and to simply let it twist in

the wind and let it be unauthorized simply because of inattention, when it has the majority of votes on this floor, mr. speaker, i've said that over and over again and have not been contradicted. there are 60 republicans who sponsored the export-import bank's re-authorization. there are 188 democrats or at least 185 democrats who will vote for it. that's 249 votes. all you need is 21. there is no doubt that the -- 218. there is no doubt that the export-import bank has the votes to pass this house and the senate. and yet we fiddle while jobs are being burned. mr. speaker that's not good policy for our country. not good policy for our

workers. it's not good policy for our businesses. for our exporters. it makes us uncompetitive with the rest of the world. 60 countries have a similar facility. i know in a perfect world, perhaps that wouldn't exist. but 60 of our exet -- competitors around the world have such a facility. that make their goods cheaper than we will be making ours. that's not good sense it's not good policy. and it's not the expectation i think the american people -- i think of the american people and it is not the will of this house. i regret that we have not addressed this already. but i certainly hope when the senate as i expect them to do, adds it mr. speaker, to the house highway bill and i'm not sure whether it will be our bill or their bill, our bill amended we may have to go to conference or we may have to get to an agreement, but one way or the other we ought to

adopt the will of this house and re-authorize the export-import bank so that we will protect jobs. it was speaker bain who are said that, it was shortly after -- boehner who said that it was shortly after the action we took on june 30 and allowed the export-import bank to expire, that we would lose jobs. in fact, that's happening. so i would hope that that would not be the case. lastly mr. speaker, i would like to ask the majority leader, i get a lot of rumors on my side, i know you get a lot of rumors on your side and i sort of smile at them. i say i think not. but i've had 20 members today ask me, mr. speaker, are we not going to be here the last week of july, that is presently scheduled, and i'd like to clear up that. i yield to my friend for a definitive answer on the schedule for -- this is a scheduling question by the way, as to whether or not in fact we're going to be here the last week of july.

mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i do smile because the only rumor i heard more about tailor swift throughout the cap -- taylor swift throughout the capitol the other day. this is this is -- i think this is wirgful thinking by the members. we have a lot of work to get done. which will be here and will not leave early. mr. hoyer: i appreciate the majority leader's clarification. our members will not necessarily appreciate it. i understand it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 2:00 p.m. on monday next and that the order of the house -- of january 6, 2015, regarding morning hour debate not apply on that day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will now entertain

requests for one-minute speeches. 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. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, evidence has been made public that the largest abortion provider in america has been actively engaged in the illegal and horrific practice of trafficking of fetal body parts. planned parenthood performs over 300,000 abortions annually. this organization's financial gains from the destruction of innocent unborn children has now been shown to profit from fetal organs. those who defend planned parenthood and these evil practices argue these clinics simultaneously provide access to other needed health services. mr. speaker, one does not justify the other. throughout the united states there's no shortage of

faith-based health service providers that, unlike planned parenthood, honor respect and care for all women and unborn children. they do not prey on the vulnerable individuals for profit. mr. speaker i join my colleagues calling for an investigation into the trafficking of fetal tissue and activities of abortion providers, such as planned parenthood, companies that broker fetal tissue and any incentives created by national institutes of health funding for research using body parts of unborn children. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does -- seek recognition? you're up. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise to

express my deep concern over atrocities recently occurring at the gay pride parade festival in istanbul, turkey. for year theture kirk lgbt community and their supporters have been able to partake in one of the few permitted pride parades in the muslim world. but this year this peaceful parade was broken up when police dispersed the parade with tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannon. reminiscent of the tactics of the american civil rights movement. mr. maloney: lgbt pride gatherings are peaceful. which is a stark contrast to the unnecessary and brutal violence. this past may i had the opportunity to visit the brave lgbt activists in turkey and to speak to them about their hopes for a better country. as a member of the lgbt community and of the congressional equality caucus, i am deeply disturbed by the way in which such a positive festival was received by the turkish government.

turkey has long expressed by its commitments to the organization for security and cooperation in europe its dedication to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. turkey is a nato ally. its actions are at odds with these previous commitments to freedom. and i am urging this congress to join me in condemning these actions. today we will send a letter signed by more than 50 members of this body to the turkish ambassador expressing our outrage by these actions and our support of the turkish people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from utah seek recognition? without objection. mrs. love: thank you, mr. speaker. i stand before this body because i am outraged that the recent revelations by a planned parenthood director who speaks on video about harvesting an unborn baby's body parts to sell. she details the horrific and barbaric practice of aborting babies in such a cold, casual

way as to preserve certain body parts for sale. mr. speaker this is an organization that receives federal funds to do their work. is this what the taxpayers are paying for? is this what they ask for? no. given planned parenthood's official comments on video and the list of serious questions that are raised, i am calling for full congressional investigation. i demand information about planned parenthood's donation of fetal tissues for research or any other purpose and for federal funds to be completely withdrawn. this is not over. we will press on. i will continue to remind this body that we work for the american people, not the other way around that we swore to uphold and defend the united states the constitution of the united states, and we will preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. this is unamerican and

absolutely unacceptable. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. earlier this year members of congress stood on this house floor and condemned the evils of trafficking humans. especially the exploitation of women and children who are treated as commodities to be bought used and disposed of. mr. huelskamp: we then walked the talk, refusing to turn a blind eye to these horrors and passed sweeping reforms to combat in this egregious human rights abuse. now we must act urgently again. abortion giant planned parenthood has exposed itself as a perpetuater of another

shocking form of trafficking, the illegal selling and buying of baby body parts and in tact organs. that's right. it is not enough that planned parenthood kills babies in the womb. no, it has to profit off the death of its victims by first dismembering these unborn children and then selling their organs piece by piece to the highest bidder. enough is enough. we will investigate this unlawful, barbaric practice and bring an end to these horrifying abuses. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: 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. >> mr. speaker i rise today to celebrate nasa's new horizons mission. yesterday after traveling more than three billion miles, the new horizons probe passed just 7,800 miles from the surface of polluteow. mr. dold: polluteow was discovered in 1930. in 2006 nasa launched new horizons in an effort to learn

more about pluto, and for the mation of our solar system. yesterday new horizons sent us back our first close-up pictures of pluto's surface. mr. speaker the new horizons mission is a great success for nasa. not only will we learn great things about our solar system, but i hope that these pictures will serve to inspire a new generation of astronomers and physicists. america's future relies upon strong and robust program of science, technology, engineering and math education or stem. and i hope that this success of this mission will encourage more students to follow in that path. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker as a representative of the 25th congressional district of texas it is my pleasure to represent fort hood in the united states congress. from the state of the art

training facilities to its experienced leadership and world renowned reputation, fort hood he demonstrates 21st century training for the 21st century soldier. mr. williams: fort hood is a treasure of texas, but also the gold standard for the army. the department of defense and our nation's overall national security posture. last week in an address to the national commission on future of the army, i presented my thoughts on the recent troop production announcement and now it relates to fort hood. if sequestration take effects in october as planned, the u.s. army will have to cut 30,000 soldiers, in addition to the 40,000 soldiers that will be removed from ranks over the next two years. at this level our military may not be able to commit to deployments, let alone take on new challenges. with the expansion of isis in syria and iraq, the instability of governments in the middle east and aggressive rush in china, i do not believe this is the time to cut our army to pre-world war ii levels. fort hood is a special community made up of some of the finest soldiers i have ever met.

they have been dealt some serious challenges in recent years and each time they have overcome them. fort hood is the great place. even though, mr. speaker, it's imperative this congress relieves the strain the sequester has put on fort hood and our entire military. it is not fair for our brave men and women to suffer the consequences of of our inability to properly govern. i would like to express my gratitude to fort hood department of the army, our soldiers and families and fellow texans. may god bless our troops, god bless the great place. and god bless the united states of america. in god we trust. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, over the past four decades the growth of upward mobility in america has stagnated despite numerous programs and trillions of dollars spent on our efforts to reduce poverty. mr. hill: in the frake of a stalemated war -- in the wake of

a stalemated war on poverty, we need to move beyond the status quo and look at the tangible impact local leadership is having on the programs and concepts that they have created to help those who are struggling in our communities. in other words, we need to focus on what works. our goal should be moving people out of poverty and up the socioeconomic ladder, and we can start by turning to our local nonprofit leaders that are working to defeat hopelessness and offering concrete and aspirational futures. look at our kids read, the volunteer literacy initiative getting private sector volunteers into our elementary schools in little rock and pulaski county and guiding third graders to a successful future by working with them to assure that they read at grade level. and let's look at our house shelter in little rock, which teaches families who are struggling with homelessness how to make and sustain positive

change. by prioritizing innovation and success in our community engagement organizations like these, private, faith-based, and public working hand in hand, can offer our families hope, aspiration and a road map toward the pursuit of happiness. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. fitzpatrick: mr. speaker, it seems like too often issues in this town are predetermined. republicans care about this. democrats care about that. there isn't any crossover. then we are stuck in gridlock. but as someone who spent my time in congress working to bridge the gap between left and right, i know there is more that unites us than divides us on the big issues. and today i'm proud to highlight another area of bipartisan

agreement, criminal justice reform. the safe justice act is a legislative proposal to modernize and strengthen our criminal justice system for the 21st century. addressing its exploding cost to taxpayers and often disproportionate application. states across the nation, red and blue alike, have led the way on this important issue and they offer a blueprint for how we address corrections at the federal level. the sache justice act expands on these lessons by seeking to curtail overcriminalization. increase evidence-based sentencing alternatives. reduce recidivism. and increase transparency and accountability. there is a serious bipartisan appetite to addre now from the house to the senate to the white house, and i look forward to working with my colleagues to tackle serious criminal justice reform in this congress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition?

>> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this week the first close-up images of pluto were released thanks to the first ever mission to explore this world three billion miles away. mr. lamalfa: nasa's new horizon launched at the speed of 30 miles per hour making it the fastest ever launched. it was launched almost 10 years ago but nasa was able to predict its arrival time within one minute only a few thousand miles from the planet. new horizons' successful mission reaffirms the leadership role the united states plays and must play in the future in space exploration. this helps foster innovation and new throfplgt it also inspires future generations to pursue degrees and careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. as new horizons begins the process of transmitting this data, we'll learn more even about pluto as well as the kiper

belt on its next mission beyond pluto. the team needs to be congratulated for its accomplishment. one all americans can be proud of and testament to american ingenuity and determination. once again nasa's expanded the recent space exploration, we applaud their efforts and new horizons team. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to section 123-a-b-3 of the floyd d. spence national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2001 22 u.s.c. 702 as amended, and the order of the house of january 6 2015 of the following individuals on the part of the house to the united states china economic and security review commission for a term expiring on december 31, 2016. the clerk: springfield, virginia.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. hudson of north carolina for tafmente -- for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. it. the motion is a -- ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands add you journed until 2:00 p.m. on monday next.

i've closely examined this document and it will have my

strong support. members are reading the document now. this is the document to hear, not that long, past the annexes, very important. i'm very proud of the attention, the careful attention that our members are giving to the document, to the joint comprehensive plan of action. congratulations to president obama, to the leaders of the p-5 plus one, all of the countries. and i want to commend secretary kerry and secretary moniz for their exceptional leadership throughout these negotiations. we had two really talented, experienced leaders at the table. more than two. but those two, senator kerry, a long-term senator with experience on foreign affairs committee, as we know, chairman and secretary moniz, one of the foremost authorities in the world on nuclear and

fizzle materials and technologies. so everyone knew they were dealing with people of knowledge, of vision, and knowing the possibilities. the president's been very clear on nuclear iran -- clear, a nuclear iran sun acceptable to the united states, -- is unacceptable to the united states, to the world, and in particular to israel. this agreement is precisely about intensifying our vigilance over every aspect of the iranian nuclear program. we have no illusions about iran. president reagan said, trust and verify. in this case i would say, distrust and verify. the aggressive restrictions and inspections provided in this agreement offer a very strong indeed the best long-term plan to stop iran from building a nuclear weapon. all options remain on the table, we're hopeful that the plan of action will be honored throughout the terms the years

of its enforcement. but nonetheless, as the president has said, all options remain on the table. while we are examining the joint plan yesterday republicans passed another, yet again, another short-term extension of the highway and transit trust fund. this time until december. it's unfortunate that once again they've chosen to take a short-term patch. but i'm hoping that we can work together to have a full bill long before december. it would be totally unacceptable to come back with another short-term extension. and already -- but we have a model. president obama's grow america act, which creates jobs and strengthens our global competitiveness. we had as our motion to recommit yesterday a version of that shorter term because

that's all the money we had to cover it, in terms of stopping inversions, which produces about $35 billion for the life of our motion to recommit. what we really want is that bill, with some modifications, and congress acting its will, of course, but with that fullness as well as longevity. as soon as the senate gets that bill we are anticipating, it is what was represented to us that they will put the ex-im bank legislation on the highway bill and send it back over to us. and then the house would be able to act upon that. we look forward to that happening. as you know, we're in appropriation season, but they're not able to do very much in terms of appropriations and we're asking the republican leadership, house and senate, let's go to the table.

we cannot support we will sustain the president's veto of all of these bills that are predicated on sequestration, on capping what we can do in terms of meeting the needs of the american people and to do so in a fiscally sound way. we're going to have to go to that place sooner rather than later. would be better. as you know, last week we went into the week thinking we were just going to be opposing the republican interior appropriations bill, which i called the polluters delight, but even it was not bad enough for the republicans and they insisted on having -- you know, overturning the amendments we had passed regarding the confederate flag. but time for us to move on from the flag, to the voting rights act. we hope many of you will join us after vote wls we come back here to talk about going to -- passing the voting rights act. august 6 will mark the 50th

anniversary of the voting rights act. a couple of years ago the senate, excuse me, the supreme court decided in my view wrongly to diminish the voting rights act. the very least we can do is pass the amendments that correct what the court -- to do what the court called for. but nonetheless we'll be talking about that around maybe 12:30, after votes. i'm going to go back to the iran -- i'm very -- the joint comprehensive plan of action i'm very encouraged by -- i'm so proud of my members. they're so diligent, so thoughtful. and what we'll have is as much education as possible for them to know, have questions, the bill itself has answers, but -- ex cue me, the agreement itself has -- excuse me, the agreement itself has answers but we want the administration to confirm

our understanding. we want to see this happen in a very thoughtful way. and not in a partisan way. so i reject those who out of hand without reading it, have said i'm against it and i'm encouraging my members to make their decision on the basis of reading it. and i'm very optimistic about our ability to support the president. questioner: will the agreement that you're holding up there be -- [inaudible] ms. pelosi: yes. right now. again, with all the respect in the world for my members we have a timetable and we are in the education phase of it right now. we heard from vice president biden yesterday. he was spectacular in terms of the perspective he gave and the specificity with which he addressed the issue and answered questions. the day before, as you know, we heard from secretary clinton and she spoke to you after that.

so you know essentially what she told us. but i feel the response that we're getting -- their openness is -- we're in a very positive place. we're in a very positive place. it would be presump shuss ofmy me to talk about any kind of vote when members are just seeing the plan's action, 24 hours. members have not been home. i want to -- them to be able to go home, talk about this with their constituents so that they make the most informed decision and -- but there's excitement about the fact -- the fact that president obama was able to bring, to keep p-5 plus one, the five members of the security council, which we are one, plus germany, brings them -- bring them to the table and to sustain that engagement for a long period of time, to

produce an agreement is quite remarkable. i can say from my experience, which i've shared with you before, that for around a quarter of a century, since i first came to congress, a little bit after that, when i traveled to china, whether it was speaking to the russians, there or here, to some of our friends in europe, to say stop transferring technology to iran . one of the reasons i wanted to be on the intelligence committee was to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. and iran was a likely candidate for such an endeavor. when you talk to the russians they say well, who are you talk to -- who are you to talk to us about selling weapons you're the biggest weapon salesman in the world? when you talk to chinese about centrifuge or magnets which are necessary for enrichment of uranium, those kind of things, they say we're just not doing

it. which of course they were. that applies to missiles as well. delivery system. and you talk to the europeans, they say, well, it's only simulation and we're saying no, it's dual use. so i've been tracking this issue for a generation and to think that russia and china plus some of the other members of the p-5 are such strong partners in all of this, and this is a partnership, is quite remarkable and i commend the president and all involved. and president bush really started some of this. and then it became more successful as the countries came together. but it was that diplomacy that brought the countries together, that gave the strength to the negotiations to achieve what is here right now. so many steps along the way great progress a good product, not only better than the status quo, not only the best possible option but a strong effective

option, proposal for keeping the peace and stopping proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. questioner: -- [inaudible] -- there are some lawmakers here on the republican side who would like to impose some mandatory sentencings for undocumented workers who may commit such crimes. what do you think about those tactics and that sort of legislation? ms. pelosi: mandatory sentences are not something i have supported. the judges who have come before our appropriations committee, any federal judges who come for their annual visits to us, have always said, give us discretion. give judges discretion. as to what a sentence might be for a particular crime. however, we did, in h.r. 15, have a graduated mandatory sentence for repeat offenses

and i think that's probably a better model than the model that is being put forth by the republicans. questioner: should it be something specific for persons who are undocumented and -- [inaudible] -- there are issues with that. ms. pelosi: that's a different issue. i support the sanctuary. we have this terrible case in our heart -- and our hearts and prayers go out to the family. in terms of your question, i which is the bill about mandatory minimums, let me also say that if we had passed the comprehensive immigration reform, which is the answer to many of the questions that you may ask on this subject, then we'd be in a better place. and in fact some of the essence of the law the republicans are putting forth, but in a more sensible way, which really came out of the senate. and that we supported.

questioner: will you be actively lobbying your colleagues on behalf of the administration regarding the iran deal? ms. pelosi: yes. i'm so proud of this. i am already making sure, not exactly lobbying, but making sure people have answers to the questions that they have. i made very clear to them my own standing on this issue and why i think this is a good agreementings i call it an agreement -- agreement, i call it an agreement, this plan of action. it's pretty exciting because the members are very, they have informed questions and they will have more informed questions the more they read and study the annex and the rest. and so it becomes almost a master class of what is in this plan, but how it sits comfortably among other plans along the way. when president reagan and gorbachev came to their agreement -- one thing

anecdotally, some of the people who are very enthusiastic about this agreement now, include a group called plow sharers. you can tell by the name it's an -- a group that has been -- its orientation has been to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. when they first started, one might have dear friends was one of the people who started it in san francisco, and other places in the country, but she was from san francisco and i remember when she went to rike vic with the women, you maybe weren't born yet, but anybody who knows emember the women who went there and who were advocating that president reagan take the position which he ultimately did. so yes, i am -- i think it's really important that, after all these negotiations, with all the engagement, the diplomacy, the wisdom, the brilliance, the ideas and the

imagination, and the compromises that have to be made, that this be supported and i am having this conversation very respectfully, because some of our members are at different places in terms of their involvement in these kinds of issues, or their service in congress. and some have very definite views and have some very strong questions, all of it healthy and valuable. all of it to be respected by all of itings but, yes, -- it, but yes, this is one of the joys of my service, to come back to what i've said to you before, one of my early goals coming to congress was to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. it's always in that -- it's always on the horizon and what you're reaching for. questioner: you've also had a long history of supporting human rights around the globe. what do you think this agreement will do to prisoners of conscience in iran and the

horrible human rights conditions we've seen in syria and the whole region? ms. pelosi: that's a very good question. human rights are really -- they're central to who we are. and i don't believe, i wasn't present, but it is my understanding that every time there was a meeting with the iranians, the question of u.s. prisoners of conscience were brought up there and also the president has made with -- met with some of the families, as well as the fact that i think we're almost in a better place to shine a light on that. the human rights situation, it's interesting. because, more than you want to know about my schedule, but after i left you last week i had the privilege of going to new york and celebrating the 80th birthday of the dalai lama, his holiness, and 17,000 people at a convention center, and then to be with him more

privately the next day and a great deal of our conversation was about human rights in china and tibet. and how can we have moral authority to talk about human rights anyplace in the world if we don't recognize the challenge of conscience they pose in china and tibet, just because the country's a big economic power. so we have to make sure it's always on the table. we have to ever advance it. because it is who we are. but it is very essential that we have this nuclear agreement and continue the conversation about human rights. questioner: do you think the four american hostages being held in iran should have been released in a precondition? ms. pelosi: no. it would have been good but, no. this is a nuclear deal.

this is a nuclear agreement. and i think that we have to -- i appreciate the fact that since we have a nuclear negotiation and now we have a nuclear agreement, that a much brighter light is being shown -- shone on the prisoners of conscience in iran. and again, i just took a trip through, in the spring with my colleagues on the subject of trade, and we brought up these issues with the government of vietnam and we brought up these issues with the administration about what was happening in malaysia in terms of trafficking. so again any issue that shines a brighter light enables us to say, are we consistent with what we believe or is it changed depending on our economic and commercial relationships with the country? security, protect and defend, that's our first

responsibility. who we are as a nation, that we respect the dignity and worth of every person, and that we want those prisoners released and the more attention that is paid to it, the better. the worst, most cruel and excruciating pain that can be inflicted on a prisoner of conscience, and again, i've been working on these issues on china as you know since i arrived here, is that they -- nobody remembers you're here, they don't know why you're here, you're wasting your time, you might as well confess or convert or whatever it is they want them to do. and this will shine a very bright light. i'm very optimistic. i know that the administration has thised a a -- as a very high priority. there's so many prisoners of conscience throughout the world and so many countries that we do have dealings with. hopefully this will serve as a model, a bridge to better understanding of who we are as a nation and why that is important to us. unfortunately i'm going to have

to go because we have votes on the floor. but thank you all very much. and we'll be back at 12:00-ish 12:30, the break during lunch. we're not providing it. but you're welcome to join us. the congressional black caucus. what i eat is ice cream. seriously, in terms of going from appropriations the confederate flag, to now the voting rights act, and that's what we're excited about talking to you about later this morning. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] mr. boehner: good morning. here in the house we continue

to focus on the people's priorities. especially when it comes to jobs and the economy. next week it will take us reforms to rein in washington's red tape factory, so small businesses can hire and expand. this comes after the white house actually cut its forecast for growth for this year, to 2%. i think that's unacceptable, we need real economic growth that means real pro-growth policies to get our economy moving again. also this month we'll take up a bill that gives the v.a. secretary the authority to actually fire an employee over misconduct. to date only two v.a. officials have been fired for the waiting list scandal that affected more than 110,000 veterans. president obama promised reform at the v.a., it hasn't happened, he promised accountability, it hasn't happened. so we'll continue to press for these reforms. but only the president can change the culture at the v.a.

on iran, given everything i've seen so far, this is a bad deal. it paves the way for a nuclear iran. and yesterday the president admitted that it will likely further iran's support for terror activities throughout the region. it blows my mind that the administration would agree to lift the arms and missile bans and sanctions on a general who supplied militants with weapons to kill americans. president obama says it's this deal or war. well that's a false choice. the sanctions were working and bringing iran to its knees. we're going to continue to review this, but we're going to fight a bad deal that's wrong for our national security and wrong for our country. also this week at my request our committees have begun looking at some of the gruesome practices embraced by planned parenthood. i'm also demanding that the president denounce and stop

these practices. if you've seen this video, i don't have to tell you howening it is -- how sickening it is. rest assured, we're going to get to the bottom of this and protect the values that we hold dear. lastly, let me take a moment to congratulate our friend, dave espoe, from the associated press, on his retirement. he's worked here, well, forever . certainly the 25 years that i've been here. i've always respected the way he's done his job and dave, we wish you the best in your retirement. questioner: speaker boehner president obama's visiting a prison today. bipartisan bill, congressman sensenbrenner and congressman scott, about criminal justice reform. will you allow that to move forward in your house? mr. boehner: absolutely. i've long believed that there needed to be reform of our criminal justice system. chairman goodlatte last year

put together a working group that had recommendations and i support those recommendations and they're by and large embraced in the bill that mr. senten brenner has with mr. -- sensenbrenner has with mr. scott, i believe. i'd like to see it on the floor. questioner: what are a couple of specific things that you think are important in criminal justice reform and where you differ with the president? mr. boehner: i don't think i want to get into all the details. i'm not the expert on these. but we've got a lot of people in prison frankly that really, in my view, really don't need to be there. it's expensive, the house -- who house prisoners. sometimes these people are in there under what i'll call flimsy reasons. and so i think it's time that we review this process, they have and i'm looking forward to putting those recommendations on the floor.

questioner: the pope finished a trip to latin america where he spent a lot of time talking about capitalism. i wonder if you imagine he'll bring that message here when he comes to congress and does that put him at all on step with the agenda of your congress? bane there's one thing we know about this -- mr. boehner: there's one thing we know about this pope. he's not afraid to take on the status quo or not afraid to say what he really thinks. i can tell you this, i'm not about to get myself into an argument with the pope. [laughter] so, i'm sure the pope will have things to say that the people will find interesting and i'm looking forward to his visit. questioner: speaker boehner, the planned parenthood video, as far as the investigation that you're calling for, the hearing you're calling for as well, what kind of accountability could possibly occur if it turns out that planned parenthood ended up selling fetal parts?

mr. boehner: i want the committees to do their investigation. i want them to do their hearings. once they have then we'll decide what's the proper course of action. questioner: on appropriations, the democrats in the senate say they're not going to pass any of those bills until they get some sort of negotiations like a ryan-murray kind of budget negotiation. what's the downside to doing that now rather than waiting until there's a log jam? mr. boehner: the house and the senate have passed a budget. we've been moving appropriation bills in the house according to that budget. and that continues to be the plan. questioner: about planned parenthood, mr. speaker, do you buy the explanation that transfers of human tissue go on frequently, have gone on for decades, they're nothing unusual and that they were discussing reimbursement, which is allowable and provided for under the law? do you buy that? mr. boehner: if you saw the

video, it certainly didn't strike me that way. i could talk about the video, but i think i'd vomit trying to talk about it. it's disgusting. questioner: mr. speaker mr. flores is just next door calling on the congress to pass a religious freedom bill in wake of the same-sex marriage ruling. is that a bill that you support, you want to bring on the floor? what do you say to members of your party who say this may make it difficult to move on from the same-sex marriage issue? mr. boehner: you know, the supreme court's decision on marriage raises a lot of other questions. a number of members have concerns about issues that it raises and how they might be addressed. but no decision's been made on how best to address these. questioner: mr. speaker, on the iran deal, one of your republican colleagues said

about the review bill, to vote on it, that the game is rigged, is essentially enabling the white house to pass the deal. nancy pelosi earlier said she was optimistic the democrats would help uphold the deal. what are the prospects for trying to block it? mr. boehner: i think every member of congress is going to have to make a decision. and they're going to have the next 60 days in order to do that. but it's pretty clear to me that a majority of the house and senate at a minimum are opposed to this deal. what those numbers look like post-labor day we'll see. questioner: did you go to the all-star game? mr. boehner: yeah. questioner: how was it? [laughter] ringing endorsement. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> this weekend on the c-span networks politics, books and

american history. a road to the white house coferingse features nearly all of the presidential candidates and begins friday night in iowa at 8:00 eastern. we're live on c-span from cedar rapids, iowa, for the democratic party hall of fame dinner. all day saturday, starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern, we're live at the family leadership summit in ames, iowa, and sunday evening, a little after 6:30 eastern, interviews with two republican presidential candidates. first, south carolina's senator lindsey graham, and then john kasich, who plans to announce his candidacy on monday. on c-span2's book tv saturday morning beginning at 11:00 eastern, would err live from new york city for the 17th annual harlem book fair with author talks and panels on economics, african-american identity and race and politics, with journalists and more. sunday night at 10:00 political commentator andrew: coulter says the greatest issue facing the u.s. is immigration. american history tv on c-span3,

saturday afternoon beginning at 1:00 eastern, we're live with the warren g. harding symposium on modern first ladies from florence harding to michelle obama. speakers include authors and directors. and a little after 9:00, the national archives of kansas city shows how the u.s. government used propaganda during world war ii to sper suede citizens to join the military by war bonds and keep national secrets. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. >> the country's involved in the iran nuclear agreement are -- countries involved in the iran nuclear agreement are working now to sell the deal to its citizens. reuters news service reports that susan rice says iran has no way to avoid inspections of military or other sites that allies deem suspicious. british foreign secretary spoke to members in the house of

commons yesterday. here's that 45-minute exchange. statement for commonwealth affairs. >> with permission i like to make a statement on the outcome of the nuclear negotiations with iraq. mr. speaker in recent days the world has held its breath as the talks between world powers and iran have edged towards the conclusion. they were difficult negotiations that all sides face a tough decision to in the early hours of yesterday morning a process that began over a decade ago came to a conclusion. the result, mr. speaker, is a historic deal a landmark moment in effort to prevent nuclear proliferation and a victory for diplomacy. the uk with its partners in the e3 plus three china france, germany, russia and the united states with the eu high

representative have a less reach a conference of agreement with iran on its nuclear program. with conclusion of these negotiations the world can be reassured that all iranian roots to a nuclear bomb have been closed off commend the world can have confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of the iranian civil nuclear program going forward. mr. speaker, the origin of these negotiations lies in the revelation some 12 years ago that iran was concealing nuclear activities in violation of his international obligations. at that time iran under different government was not willing to meet the requirements of the international atomic energy agency. the international community responded with multiple u.n. security council resolutions. they agree that we have reached does not absolve iran of blame for his previous activities nor does it wipe the slate clean. instead it offers iran the opportunity to draw a line under

its past behavior and gradually to build the world's trust in its declarations that it is not pursuing the development of a nuclear weapon. this will not be a quick process, but with implementation of this deal it should be possible. mr. speaker, the government's purpose in seeking an agreement has always been clear, to secure assurance that iran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon. to that end this agreement imposes strict limits on iran's nuclear program to a conference and long lasting. or 10 years iran's enrichment capacity will be reduced by over two-thirds from current levels. it will only enrich uranium to a level of three-point 67% well below the 90% level of enrichment considered necessary for a nuclear weapon. at its stockpile of low-enriched uranium would be limited to 300 kilos down from over seven times at present with the

balance being afforded to russia. it's research and develop an activity will be constrained so that would not be able to enrich with advanced centrifuges for at least 10 years. additionally, no uranium enrichment enrichment r&d or nuclear material will be permitted at iran's underground for to nuclear sector could agree but also cuts off the plutonium route to developing a nuclear bomb -- fordow. the heavy water research -- research reactor at arak with the recent -- mr. speaker, given the historic levels of mistrust that have built up between iran and the international community, a strong inspections regime and a framework for addressing concerns about past military dimensions to iran's nuclear program are vital to building trust and providing us with the confidence that the rent is meeting its commitments.

some of the gross margin and transparency measures of this deal will last indefinitely such as the augmentation of the additional protocols of the copper into the safeguards agreement. the safety for every country allows access to sites for which the iaea has concern but cannot be addressed in any other way. iran is no exception. iran's npt obligations including the obligation never to acquire or develop nuclear weapons will apply during and after the period of the deal. we will not hesitate to take action, including the reintroduced in -- reintroduction of sanctions. and are concerned about the possible military dimensions of iran's nuclear program will be addressed. the iaea and iran have agreed a roadmap of actions to clarify these issues. taken together, mr. speaker

these measures mean that if iran were to renege on its promises and try to break out for a bomb, it would take at least 12 months even to acquire the necessary fissile material for a single device. the robust transparency measures we have agreed mean that we, the international community, would know almost immediately and we would have time to respond. in return for implementing these commitments, and as our confidence in iran's program develops over time iran will receive faced and proportional sanctions relief. initially there will be relief of the eu-u.s., human nuclear related economic and financial sanctions. but to be clear mr. speaker this sanctions relief will only be triggered once the iaea verifies that iran has taken they agreed steps to limit its nuclear program. other core provisions in existing u.n. security council resolutions will be

reestablished by a new u.n. resolution. important restrictions on import and export of conventional arms and develop ballistic missiles will be reimposed through an annexed to the resolution, and only lifted later in the agreement. mr. speaker these relaxations are backed by robust enforcement mechanism. if there is a significant violation of the nuclear provisions of the agreement, all previously u.n. sanctions can be we imposed through a snapback mechanism which any party to this agreement can invoke. the eu and the u.s. could also reimposed their own sanctions in such a scenario. clearly having made this agreement it will be strong in iran's interest to comply with the provisions of it to avoid a return to the sanctions regime that has crippled its economy for so long. we now need to look ahead to the

implementation of the agreement. after such a tough negotiation there will inevitably be bumps along the road. we entered into this agreement in good faith, and all sides must try to is altogether any problems in implementing this deal. but the deal includes robust enforcement provisions, and we will not hesitate to use of them if iran goes back on its word. mr. speaker this agreement is focused solely on iran's nuclear program but its conclusions could have come its conclusion could have wider positive consequences. by providing the means through sanctions relief for iran's economic we engagement with the world, it will allow the iranian people to feel the tangible benefit of international cooperation. as the economic we engagement materializes we will of course seek to assist uk businesses to take advantage of the opportunities that will arise.

that assistance would be enhanced to having a british embassy in tehran. we remain committed to reopening our embassies in each others countries, and will do so once we have resolve outstanding issues. the deal also has the potential to build a different kind of relationship between iran and the west. and change in a positive way the dynamics in the region and beyond. in an atmosphere of developing confidence and trust there will be an opportunity for iran to realign its approach in support of the international community's efforts, in particular in confronting fisher challenge of isil and the resolution of regional crises such as those in yemen and syria. but this will be a process, it will take time. and in the meantime we remain realistic about the nature of the iranian regime and its wider ambitions. we will continue to speak out against iran's poor human rights

record and we will continue to work closely with our friends allies and partners in the region who live with iranian interference in their neighborhood. iran will not get a free pass to metal be on its borders. mr. speaker an iranian bomb would be a major threat to global stability. about threat is now removed. we and iran now have a common responsibility to ensure that the wider potential benefits of this deal for the region and for the international community as a whole are delivered. the uk is fully committed to playing its part, and documented this statement to the house. >> here, here. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can first offered apologies of my right honorable friend who can't be with us today because he's recovering from a minor operation. can i begin by thanking the foreign secretary for advance sight of this statement for setting up the details of this landmark agreement. let me begin by paying tribute

to him john kerry our european and international partners and everyone involved for the efforts in securing a major diplomatic breakthrough. there has long been consensus across the front benches that seeking an agreement with iran was the right thing for the international community to do. we have always supported the approach of sanctions and negotiations backed up by u.n. security council resolutions. it is welcome the talks have reached a conclusion more than 12 years since they first began with the support of him and others have been foreign secretary jack straw. mr. speaker, none of us want iran to have a nuclear weapon and no one believes the world would be a safer place were they ever to acquire one. so it is worth reflecting on how much more grade the world might look today at the foreign sector have returned to the house to report that the talks have collapsed without an agreement. we would be facing the almost

certain we start iran's nuclear program with no means of monitoring or inspection. the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the middle east and greater instability in an already volatile region. that's why it has been right to use the negotiating opportunity that the pressure of sanctions against the iranian regime has created, and that this process was not rushed in order to get this right. the question now is to ensure that this agreement lives up to the words of the eu and iranian foreign minister's joint statement yesterday. that this is not only ideal but a good deal and a good deal for all sides. mr. speaker, negotiations on this complexity are never easy. that is the nature of diplomacy, but this agreement presents the international community with a real chance to make progress in the right direction and we should grasp it. foreign sector outlined many aspects in detail. let me touch on just a number of these. firstly iran has reaffirmed as

part of the agreement that under no circumstances will that ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons. this is significant and important. but the world want to see iran's words are matched by its deeds. especially those countries in the region that have particular concerns. so i welcome the foreign secretaries assurances of a thorough and independent inspections are at the heart of this agreement. it is the final that imitation is based not on faith but on facts, evidence and the verification. we on this side of always said that iran should have to demonstrate beyond doubt that it is not pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. it realize realizes the measures outlined in the joint action plan should now able everyone to see that this is the case. that is essential if this agreement is to command the confidence of world opinion.

much has been made of the proposals to manage access to particular sites with the commission to rule on whether inspection requests i the international atomic energy agency are just that i would therefore be grateful if the foreign secretary to provide further detail about this a work in practice. what assurances were given in vienna to ensure that this process will not prove to be an obstruction? mr. speaker, on enrichment it is welcome that iran has pledged to remove 90% of its stockpile of enriched uranium and two-thirds of installed centrifuges. there's been much discussion of the numbers and at the time scales involved. as the foreign secretary said some parts of the stay will remain in place for five years such as the arms embargo. other restrictions for 10 to 15 years, and other transparency measures will stay in place permanently. he explained the rationale for this time scales and one the government is satisfied that

they are sufficient or would he also agreed that while we should be positive about implementation of this agreement we must also go into it with our eyes open works if there's a lesson to be drawn from the collapse of the agreed framework we negotiate with north korea in the 1990s it is that the success of these agreements should be judged not over months but in years. so it is right some sanctions and should be removed gradually and only as iran owners the commitments it has made. were iran to violate the terms of the agreement is government set aside the provisions of sanctions to snap back are tough enough to block the path to a nuclear weapon? finally does the foreign secretary agree with the words of -- the iranian foreign minister. he said yesterday this deal represents not a seemingly foundation to build other it's no secret that iran has been involved for many years in exploiting sectarian tensions in the region whether proxy armies

or support for terrorist groups. those issues as a difficult relationship with iran will not go away overnight. this agreement does present iran with an opportunity to put a much more constructive global role, particularly with our shared interest in defeating the threat from isil or daesh. what confidence is before secretary of that iran is ready and willing to use this breakthrough to him improve its relations? does he agree opening up better links with a rim of the process of reform within the country which needs of course as the foreign secretary said to include improving its human rights record? and for britain specifically, he mentioned ongoing efforts to reopen our embassy in tehran. window seat realistically expect that to take place? mr. speaker working together at an international community is a well-worn phrase but this moment does show what can be achieved through patience and diplomacy. if history teaches us anything however, it is that piece is a

process, not anything that the iranian president yesterday called this a new chapter. we all live in hope that this is one that will help lead to a safer and more peaceful world, free of nuclear weapons. we on this side will continue to support all efforts to make the help of reality. >> i'm grateful to the audible jump in for the constructive tone in which he is approach this announcement, and thank you for the continued support from the odyssey front bench for what is fortunately in view of the duration, something that has been across party approach for many years. he mentioned the long duration of these negotiations and i would like that's not just about foreign secretaries and just sectors the state. it's also about the experts and diplomats who have been carrying out these negotiations on the team that traveled back from vienna with me there was at least one person who has been on

this project for 10 years ma and who now faces i need a new career after 10 years on this particular project. these have been complex. it's important outcome is a win-win. coming back from vienna with something that was a triumph for us but not a win for iran would be a hollow victory because it would eventually fall apart. there has to be something solid for iran for the iranian people. there has to be an opportunity for the iranian people to build a new future and ensure the future prosperity of their country, and i'm confident this agreement will allow that. we shouldn't underestimate the importance in a country like iran of the religious edict against building a nuclear weapon. that is now firmly enshrined in the words of the supreme leader of iran will not build or seek

to acquire a nuclear weapon. but he's right. we have to be pragmatic, and a robust inspection regime is that part of our ability to do this deal. he asked me how the monitoring and access arrangements would work. the monitoring is multifaceted. them the electronic monitoring sophisticated advanced telemetry seals, for example, on equipment that has been taken out of use. there will be cctv cameras within the facilities. ability regular inspections by iaea inspectors, and if there is any suspicion by the iaea that they need access to aside that they do not regularly inspected, they can demand such access. if the iranians deny access, the question of what access should be allowed will be referred to the j.c. '08 commission and it will be, it will be determined

on a five out of eight majority vote. the members of that commission are that the 3+3, the eu high representative, and iran is a. we are confident that in that format proper access will be insured. he asked about the different timescales. we are comfortable with the end result. obviously, this was a negotiation and we didn't get as long on some other restrictions like arms control, conventional arms control, as we would have liked. but on the nuclear part of the deal we are very comfortable that we have respected our timelines which are about maintaining a minimum 12 month breakout for a minimum of 10 years. we are confident that we have well in excess of the minimum rake period for well in excess of 10 years as a result of the practical effects of this agreement.

he also asked me about this now back to the mechanisms first that that are robust and we insisted upon the. if any member company member of the joint commission including the united kingdom believes iran is insignificant violation, that member is entitled to ask you a city council to vote on a negative resolution which would cause the sanctions to snap back. the honorable gentleman mentioned north korea, and i understand why he did so. but having spent some time with the iranians negotiate and spent some time find out a bit more more than i presume you about iran i just want want to say disparate iran is a very different country from north korea. iran is a major player in the region. it is a big country with huge resources, a large and well educated population. it can if it chooses play an enormously positive role in the

development of the middle east and, indeed, can contribute positively to world affairs. and he asked me about the reef. he is a reformer. rouhani is a reformer but we do not delude ourselves that is but in tehran is welcoming this agreement today, that everybody in tehran shared their vision of a more open and more engaged iran. our job is to make sure that as this agreement is a limited we reinforce the hand of those in iran represent the majority that would like iran to engage in a responsible way with the world. and part of that is ensuring that we work with iran to do with the shared threat of isil across the region. ..

i very much welcome the tone of the foreign secretary's remarks. this now opens the way for iran to play a constructive role in regional shares and noting that we have a profound common interest in defeating dinesh and the reactions from reality. will we do not use the opportunity to employ the full british diplomacy to force intelligent, effect

incorporation between riyadh and tehran towards a common strategy to defeat daish appeared >> he is quite right it is to achieve a measure reconciliation between saudi arabia and constructive engagement between those two important regional powers in addressing many challenges facing the region. that will not happen overnight. he's absolutely right the measured tone of the response we heard from saudi arabia in stark contrast to the last measured response was heard from elsewhere in the region and is promising and i spoke last night we will maintain our engagement doing two things. encouraging allies in the arab countries around the goals to be willing to engage with iran over

time in a sensible and measured way, but also providing them the reassurance they need about their security to allow them to take a little more risk in trying to realize the opportunities the agreement presents. >> may i congratulate the foreign secretary and all others involved on this historic agreement on what has taken an enormous amount of time effort and detail and i think it is appropriate to congratulate barack obama this agreement that george -- yet they have many aspects which are objectionable

and we look for improvements in the treatment on civil rights and other ways and i ran. i ran as a player and it's important indeed. will the foreign secretary made clear to the government of israel which unlike iran is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty and which has hundreds of nuclear warheads and missiles that any attempt by an to deal with communicate the agreement will not be tolerated. >> mr. speaker, i am honorable to good gentleman's remarks in in fact, he took the words out of my mouth. i was trying to explain why george was better than world war

but i found it difficult to convey across the language barrier. of course what he said is a rate. iran has been subject to 35 years of isolation. it's a choice in our thoughts and getting iran engaged in the affairs of the region again will be a huge benefit. i am going tonight to israel and will have a chance to convey our message directly to prime minister not yahoo! -- benjamin netanyahu. israel will seek to use its influence in the u.s. congress to abstract the progress of the deal. i am confident the action will not succeed. i'm also confident israel has shown time and again that it can be pragmatic and once it has exhausted the avenue of opportunity that it will seek to engage in a sensible pragmatic way to deal with the new reality on the ground in the middle

east. >> dr. liam fox. >> mr. speaker, my right honorable friend is right that if iran gives up nuclear ambitions is a huge move forward and reasonable security. but if we have confidence in verification that must be unfettered and unrestricted. can my right honorable friend guarantee to the house iran could be forced to grant access to any site designated in how quickly would iran be forced to do so. while his right there is positive implications for the agreement, there's also potential negative implications. if iran had sanctions lifted what assurances are being sought that this will not be used to fund proxy since hamas and has a lot provide greater and stability to the region. >> my right honorable friend makes a series of good points

and he is right the access for verification is the crucial underpinning of the agreement. we haven't been able to secure arrangements and we wouldn't been able to make the deal. it would've been too too much risk attached to it. i describe in response earlier the arrangements for identification for inspection and reference of any iranian and actions to the commission. we are confident those arrangements will work. it will mean typically around a period of 21 days between initial demand and mandated access. if they continue to deny access that the commission has mandated should be access, though it be a breach of the agreement subject to snap back.

my friend asked me about iran's assets. ultimately it will be to the unfreezing of $150 billion in the outset outside of the country. it will be a progressive process. what will happen with the money how can we be sure it won't be used to process interference in the region. but can't be absolutely sure. first of all iran has a huge deficit of infrastructure investment in this country, energy, exporting infrastructure and needs a new fleet of civilian aircraft. they're a huge demand for the use of the assets and the reformers in iran understand very well the deal has to

deliver real benefits to ordinary people as they go about investing in no-space. the second point is that very little money available and under the full burden of international sanctions, the islamic revolution command has made a pretty effect your job in syria lebanon and elsewhere. it is not as this the body was itching to do things i'm unable to do them. it has been able to be effective on a shoestring and we don't think the release will make a material difference. >> i point out to the house that it's not an honorable gentleman. he is a right honorable gentleman. he is quite important to get these things right. >> be aware that president

rouhani -- [inaudible] in his doctoral thesis he wrote this verifies no loss in this land are immutable and that is true and it's also true of relationships between nations. not to listen to the prophets of doom by to see this welcome agreement as they start to a process of engagement that will bring good people of the remarkable country back into the community of nations. >> i have to confess that i was not aware the president was a graduate of glasgow university but i'm delighted to hear it. let's say a wholly new spin on the meeting but then he has relied on a consecutive english translation. he clearly does understand what we say. or maybe not.

i totally agree with the honorable gentleman. there is a huge opportunity. it is in our interest in the region's interest that we grasp it and ensure we do that. >> dr. julian lewis, most of the contributors so far have welcomed this development. will the foreign secretary bear in mind the world also breathes a sigh of relief in 1972 with the signing of biological weapons convention only to discover after 1989 russia has been cheating on the massive than industrial scale. there must always hope for the best. i hope you'll bear in mind who will also be prepared for the worst. >> the cautionary statement and the difference in the case with rashes cheating in the license agreement was that we did have

the good intrusive inspections and access we will have in relation to iran. it is right while they go forward with optimism as the others have suggested, we should also be cautious. we should recognize a very big deficit of mistrust to be overcome. we need the access and inspection regimes. we need to pursue cautious and not least if we can't reassure partners in the region that we are approaching this cautiously and sensibly we will lose them and not be able to encourage them to engage in the way we want to see. >> that history will decide whether this was an historic agreement or not. it may be a bit premature at this stage. the negotiations took longer to reach than the safeguards stated

10 years to get to this point. can i return to the point about using sanctions lifted to support these proxies? i do think he needs to reassure the house a little bit more to the lifting of sanctions will meet at iran becomes our proxy. >> mr. speaker, first of, first of all she is obviously right. she corrects for an era which i'm sure many of us have made describing something this historic premature basis. she talks about a 10 year time scale. the significance here is many of the measures taken by have an effect which lasts much longer than 10 years. frankly, the challenge now is to change the mindset in iran that the uranium before the iranian leadership. we have a tad-15 year period

starting from now when we need to get it enshrined in the iranian mentality that it is better for iran, that iran will have more influence, more prosperity more success working with the international community can international community and working in isolation. that is why it is important we engage with them and i look forward to doing that. >> i right honorable friend will forgive me if i press him on one aspect of the agreement. he talks about drawing a line. we don't actually have a line that. we have in the words of the agreement a roadblock will drive out of line. given iran's past that committees of clandestine site and obfuscation, could you just a little bit about how we will know exactly what the position is when verification takes place

but now it's against a position that exists. >> yes mr. speaker. the international atomic energy authority who has responsibility for this has agreed that iran is a roadmap that affect entities need to be carried out so allowed to publish its final report. we don't know how long that will take care of probably six months also. various conditionality here until they establish the sanctions will not be >> you can watch all of this online at c-span.org. we are taking you live to capitol hill. federal reserve chair janet yellen before the senate banking committee to update members on the current status of the economy. what monetary policy is doing to sustain the recovery. senator richard shelby chairs the committee. the ranking democrat is sherr red brown. getting under way live shortly

on c-span. senator shelby: the committee will be in order. today we will receive testimony from the federal reserve cheryl janet yellen. the semiannual hearings are an important part of the committee's oversight of the fed and among the few opportunities that we have for public discussion with the chairwoman of the federal reserve. the fed as we all know plays an important role in the overall economy, both in managing the

supply of money and monitoring the health of the financial system. through its quantitative easing and other special programs, the feds' balance sheet has expanded to an unprecedented size of $4.5 trillion. to put it in perspective, nearly 20% of all treasury securities, 20%, are hailed on the fed's ballance sheet. furthermore, rather than using the proceeds from mortgage backed securities to reduce its balance sheet, the federal reserve continues to reinvest these proceeds into even more mortgage backed securities. in addition, the federal reserve continues to hold down interest rates despite potential adverse effects on the u.s. economy, including the negative impact on household savings. past announcements by the federal open market committee has stated that it would adjust its interest rate policy once

unemployment fell to 5.6%. the feds estimates, however, show an unemployment rate of 5.3% or lower for 2015, yet interest rates remain unchanged. the monetary policy report released yesterday states that the fed will keep rates low, even though, quote the unemployment rate will be at or below its longer run normal level. whatever that means. this is concerning to a lot of people because pushing the economy beyond its normal level can have negative effects as we have seen with economic bubbles in recent history. more than ever, the financial markets have become heavily dependent on the feds' monetary policy decisions, which makes transparency i believe even more important. the fode is often described by its own officials as the world's

most transparent central bank. or at least one of the most transparent. but it's worth noting that in recent respects federal open market committee monetary policy decisions are less transparent than in other central banks, including the european central bank and the bank of england. for example, the bang of -- bank of england has more annual meetings and shorter delay in publishing its minutes sthan the federal reserve, and both banks issue more monetary reports per year. in addition, the european central bank has twice the number of press conferences. so it seems that some aspects of the fed's transparency could be improved. similar concerns exist regarding the fed's regulatory authority. the federal reserve's dodd-frank and ccar stress test determine the fate of u.s. banks. but the fed does not reveal

exactly out banks will be tested or in what ways they have fallen short. similarly, many banks have been forced to file and refile their living wills without a thorough explanation from the fed on why the submission failed. i believe the federal reserve must provide more complete explanations of its actions in order for the financial system and the u.s. economy to function effectively. chairman yellen, we look forward to your testimony here today and your appearance and hope that you will be able to shed some light on some of the questions i have raised. senator brown. senator brown: thank you welcome back to the committee. nice to see you again. five years ago next week, july 21 the wall street format became law. that anniversary serves as an important and ever present reminder of the cost of the financial crisis. the cost of the crisis were nine

million jobs lost, unemployment rate that reached 10%, five million americans who lost their homes, $13 trillion in household wealth erased. in ohio alone, unemployment was over 10%. half a million homes were foreclosed upon. between 2006 andp 2011. my wife and i live -- wife live in the city of cleveland, and 2007 i believe that zip code had the highest number of foreclosures of any zip code in the united states. my state suffered 14 years in a row of one foreclosure entire state, one foreclosure one year to the next. every year an increased number of foreclosures for 14 years. as the chair of the federal reserve the unemployed are more than just ticks. behind each job loss, behind each foreclosures were painful conversations, parents telling their children they are going to have to share a house with their relatives. leaving their neighborhood

schools and friends, or that they could no longer afford their child's education. think what that would be like. the crisis took a devastating financial and psychlogical toll on a generation of workers and their families. we cannot forget that is why we passed the wall street reform law. today's hearing is a reminder how far we have come in five years. after unprecedented actions by the government to stabilize the economy in the creation of a new regulatory framework to maintain financial stability and protect consumers, the private sector's created almost 13 million new jobs household wealth has grown by some $30 trillion, exceeding precrisis levels and business lending has climbed over 30%. this hearing is also a reminder of how important it is that our financial system remains well regulated for financial stability for consumer frokes and prevent the next crisis. no one wants to return to the days of 2008 and 2009. yet opponents of wall street

reform continue to say that the law has not stabilized the economy and even new regulations will cause will bring on the next financial crisis. wall street reform did not rein the economy, wall street gambling d. along with the failure of regulators to take away the punch bowl. we have made it less likely taxpayers will get stuck with the tab for another bailout. polling last week shows americans agree with that assessment. they overwhelmingly support strong financial rules. some of the behavior in the economy is the product of extraordinary interest rate environment of the past seven years. so it's no surprise that all eyes are on the fed as it considers its first interest rate increase since 2008. there are real risks in tightening monetary policy too soon. because although the economy has made progress since the crisis, we still have a ways to go. the recovery's been uneven. there are many groups of americans who have not been

fitted from it. prema -- benefited from it. premature rate increases means people wouldn't see new jobs or cr access to credit. greece and china also remind us any progress that our economy makes cannot be divorced from what's happening overseas. our manufacturers, exporters are already contending with a very strong dollar. i look forward to your assessment to our nation's economy as well as your appraisal of the progress made from the enactment and implementation of wall street reform. thank you again for joining us. senator shelby: madam chair welcome again to the committee. your written statement will be made part of the record in the totality. you proceed as you wish. chairwoman yellen: chairman shelby ranking member brown, and members of the committee i'm pleased to present the federal reserve's semiandual -- annual -- semiannual policy reports to

the reports. i will discuss the current economic situation and outlook before turning to monetarypolicy. since my appearance before this committee in february, the economy has made further progress toward the federal reserve's objective of maximum employment while inflationists continue to run below the level that the federal open market committee judges to be most consistent over the longer run with the federal reserve's statutory mandate to promote maximum employment and price stability. in the labor market, the unemployment rate now stands at 5.3%. down more than 4.5 percentage points from its 10% peak in late 2009. meanwhile, monthly gains and nonfarm payroll employment averaged about 210,000 over the first half of this year.

somewhat less than the robust 260,000 average seen in 2014, but still sufficient to bring the total increase in employment since its trough to more than 12 million jobs. other measures of job market health are also trending in the right direction. with no decline over the past year in the number of people suffering long-term unemployment, and in the numbers working part-time who would prefer full-time employment. however these measures, as well as the unemployment rate, continue to indicate that there is still some slack in labor markets. for example too many people are not searching for a job but would likely do so if the labor market was stronger. although there are tentative signs that wage growth has picked up, it continues to be relatively subdued.

consistent with other indications of slack. thus while labor market conditions have improved substantially, they are in the foic's judgment not yet consistent with maximum employment. even if the labor market was improving, domestic spending and production softened notably during the first half of this year. real g.d.p. is now estimated to have been little changed in the first quarter after having risen an average annual rate of 3.5% over the second half of last year. industrial production has declined a bit on balance since the turn of the year. while these developments bear watching, some of this sluggishness seems to be the result of transtorrey factors including usually severe winter weather, labor disruptions at west coast ports, and statistical noise.

the available data suggests moderate pace of g.d.p. growth in the second quarter as these influences dissipate. notably, consumer spending has picked up, and sales of motor vehicles in may and june were strong. suggesting that many households have both the wherewithal and confidence to purchase big-ticket items. in addition, home building has picked up somewhat lately. although the demand for housing is still being restrained by limited availability of mortgage loans to many fonings home buyers. -- potential home buyers. business investments has been soft this year, partly reflecting the plunge in oil drilling. and exports are being held down by weak economic growth in several of our major trading partners and the appreciation of the doll amplet looking forward prospects are favorable for further improvement in the u.s.

labor market and the economy more broadly. low oil prices and ongoing employment gains should continue to bolster consumer spending. financial conditions generally remain supportive of growth, and the highly acome dayive common tarry policies abroad should work to strengthen global growth. in addition, some of the head winds restraining economic growth including the effects of dollar appreciation on net exports, and the effect of lower oil prices on capital spending, should diminish over time. as a result, the fomc expects u.s. g.d.p. growth to strengthen over the remainder of this year and the unemployment rate to decline gradually. as always, however there are some uncertainties in the economic outlook. foreign developments in particular pose some risks to u.s. growth.

most notably, although the recovery in the euro area appears to have gained firmer footing, the situation in greece remains difficult. and china continues to grapple with the challenges posed by high debt, weak property markets, and volatile financial conditions. but economic growth abroad could also pick up more quickly than observers generally anticipate. providing additional support for u.s. economic activity. the u.s. economy also might snap back more quickly as the transtorrey influences holding down first half growth stayed and the boost to consumer spending for low oil prices shows through more definitively. as i noted earlier, inflation continues to run below the committee's 2% objective. with the personal consumption expenditures or p.c.e. price index up only one quarter

percent over the 12 months ending in may, and the core index which excludes the volatile food and energy components up only 1 1/4 percent other the same period. to a significant extent, the recent low readings on total p.c.e. inflation reflect influences that are likely to be trans-- transtorrey. specifically the declines in oil prices and the prices of nonenergy imported goods. energy prices appear to have stabilized recently. while the monthly inflation readings have firmed lately, the 12-month change in the p.c.e. price index is likely to remain near its recent low level in the near term. my colleagues and i continue to expect it is the effect of these transtorrey factors dissipate and as the labor market improves further, inflation will move

gradually back toward our 2% objective over the median term. market-based measures of inflation compensation remain low although they have risen some from their levels earlier this year. and survey based measures of longer term inflation expectations have remained stable. the committee will continue to monitor inflation developments carefully. regarding monetary policy, the fomc conducts policy to promote maximum employment and price stability as required by our statutory mandate from the congress. given the economic situation that i just described, the committee has judged that a high degree of monetary policy accommodation, remains appropriate. consistent with that assessment we have continued to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at zero to a quarter percent and have kept the

federal reserve's holdings of longer term securities at their current elevated level to help maintain accommodating financial conditions. in its most recent statement, the fomc again noted that it would be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate when it is seen further improvement in the labor market and is reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2% objective over the median term. the committee will determine the timing of the initial increase in the federal funds rate on a meeting by meeting basis. depending on its assessment of realized and expected progress for its objectives of maximum employment and 2% inflation. if the economy evolves as we expect, economic conditions likely would make it appropriate at some point this year to raise

the federal funds rate target. thereby beginning to normalize the stance of monetary policy. most participants in june projected that an increase in the federal funds target range would likely become appropriate before year-end. but let me emphasize again that these are projections based on the anticipated half of the economy not statements of intent to raise rates at any particular time. the decision by the committee to raise its target range for the federal funds rate will signal how much progress and recovery the economy has made in healing from the trauma of the financial crisis. that said, the importance of the initial step to raise the federal funds rate target should not be overemphasized. what matters for financial conditions and the broader economy is the entire expected

path of interest rates. not any particular move, including the initial increase in the federal funds rate. indeed, the stance of monetary policy will likely remain highly acome dayive for quite some time -- accommodative for quite some time in order to support continued progress toward our objectives of maximum employment and 2% inflation. in the projections prepared for our june meeting, most fomc participants anticipated that economic conditions would evolve over time in a way that will warrant gradual increases in the federal funds rate as the head winds that still restrain real activity continue to diminish and inflation rises. of course if the expansion proves to be more vigorous than currently anticipated, and inflation moves higher than expected then the appropriate

path would likely follow a higher and steeper trajectory. conversely, if conditions were to prove weaker, then the appropriate trajectory would be lower than currently projected. as always, we will regularly reassess what level of the federal funds rate is consist tept with achieving and maintaining the committee's dual mandate. i would also like to note that the federal reserve has continued to refine its operational plans pertaining to the deployment of our various policy tools when the committee judges it appropriate to begin normalizing the stance ofpolicy. last fall the committee issued a detailed statement concerning its plans for policy normalization. over the past few months we have announced a number of additional details regarding the approach the committee intends to use when it decides to raise the target range for the federal

funds rate. these statements pertaining to policy normalization constitute recent examples of the many steps the federal reserve has taken over the years to improve our public communications concerning monetary policy. as this committee well knows, the board as for many years delivered an expansive report on monetary policy and economic developments at its semiannual hearings such as this one. in the fomc has long announced its monetary policy decisions by issuing statements shortly after its meetings, followed by minutes of its meetings with the full account of policy discussions, and within the appropriate lab complete meeting transcripts. innovations in recent years have included quarterly press conferences and the quarterly release of the fomc participants' projections for economic growth, unemployment,

inflation, and the appropriate path to the committee's interest rate target. in addition, the committee adopted the statement in 2012 concerning its longer run goals and monetary policy strategy that included a specific 2% longer run objective for inflation and a commitment to follow a balanced approach in pursuing our mandated goals. transparency concerning the federal reserve's conduct of monetary policy is desirable because public understanding enhances the effectiveness of policy. more important however, is the transparent communications reflect the federal reserve's commitment to accountability within our democratic system of government. our various communications tools are important means of implementing monetary policy and have many technical elements. each step forward in our

communications practices has been taken with the goal of enhancing the effectiveness of monetary policy and avoiding unintended consequences. effective communication is also crucial to ensuring that the federal reserve remains accountable but measures to effect the ability of policymakers to make decisions of monetary policy through short-term political pressure in the name of transparency should be avoided. the federal reserve ranks among the most transparent central banks. we publish a summary of our balance sheet every week. our financial statements are audited annually by an outside auditor. and made public. every security we hold is listed on the website of the federal reserve bank of new york. and it conforms with the dodd-frank act transactional data on all our lending, including the identity of borrowers and the amounts borrowed are published with the

two-year lag. efforts to further increase transparency, no matter how well-intentioned, must avoid unintended consequences that could undermine the federal reserve's ability to make policy in the long run best interest of american families and businesses. in sum, since the february, 2015 monetary policy report, we have seen despite the soft patch in economic activity in the first quarter, that the labor market has continued to show progress toward our objective of maximum employment. inflation has continued to run below our longer run objective, but we believe transtorrey factors have played a major role. we continue to anticipate that it will be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate when the committee has seen further improvement in the labor market and is

reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2% objective over the median term. as always, the federal reserve remains committed to employing its tools to best promote the attainment of its dual mandate. thank you. i would be pleased to take your questions senator shelby: thank you, madam chair. recently some us have raised concerns over a proposal to reduce the statutory dividend paid to member banks on the shares that they hold in their respective reserve banks to help pay for new transportation bill. are you aware of some of these proposals and do you have some concerns? chair yellen: chair shelby, i have heard about this proposal and i guess i would say i would be concerned that reducing the dividend could have unintended consequences for banks willingness to be part of the

federal reserve system. and this might particularly apply to smaller institutions. i would also say that this is a change that likely would be a significant concern to the many small banks that we receive this dividend. -- that receive this dividend. i suppose i would say that this is a change to the law that could conceivably have unintended consequences and i think it deserves some serious thought and analysis. senator shelby: i agree with you. i don't see any nexus between the dividends coming from members of the federal reserve system, which a lot of small medium size banks and funding the highway transportation system. i think that's a pretty far reach. people look for money everywhere they can get it. that's something that i think we better be working together on. i hope.

in another area. the impact of regulation on liquidity, the issue of liquidity in the fixed income market has become a daily topic in the news and in the markets. last month secretary lieu testified in the u.s. house that he does not, and i'm quoting he does not believe that federal regulation is a significant factor contributing to any liquidity issues. interesting. do you think that federal regulation is significant factor impacting market liquidity in any respect? what work has the federal reserve done to determine the impact of regulation on liquidity, if you have in our markets? chair yellen: i would say that we are studying this issue very carefully. we certainly heard the market

concerns on this topic. at this point i can give you a list of factors that may be causing this phenomenon. i should say you see this -- you see this decline in liquidity in some measures, but not in others. . is there a number of things that might be involved? first, there is a change in the structure of the market. a larger share of bonds are held by investors such as insurers and pension funds that may do less trading than leveraged firms that used to be more dominant in this market. we have had higher capital requir