not raising for private sources or equalizing or limiting the amounts that people can raise. on the more potent and a libertarian side, you have worries that the limits are too low. we should have higher limits that allow people to raise some discourse amount of money at larger chunks and not spend so much money raising it is they are worried of raising lots of checks. we did worry about outside groups. outside independent groups are spending a lot of money on campaigns. we did not have a solution for that. host: we have to leave it there. john fortier, the director of bipartisan policy center's democracy project. thank you for your time. the house is gathering and for their live session. the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. july 22, 2015.

i hereby appoint the honorable scott r. tipton to act as speaker pro tempore on this dafmente -- day. signed, john a. boehner speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour, each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. it was interesting to listen to some of the congressional reactions after the united nations security council on monday unanimously approved a resolution that creates a basis for international economic

sanctions against iran to be lifted. this was a 15-0 vote for the 104-page resolution that lays out the steps required for lifting united nations sanctions. and importantly, it sets up a way to renew sanctions if iran does not abide by its commitments. if we get into a dispute over iran's enrichment activities, these sanctions automatically snap back after 30 days. and the united states, as a member of the security council, could veto any effort to change that. the united states controls the snap back. congress should not be annoyed but instead should understand and appreciate the unanimous support from the major countries that helped secure the agreement and enforce sanctions in the first place. the united states did not bring iran to the negotiating table by itself. we have been sanctioning iran

for years with far more stringent and stronger economic body blows. but they didn't bite until we were joined by other powerful countries. it required japan and india not to buy iranian oil. and unanimous support of the u.n. security council plus germany, the so-called p5+1 to hammer this out. this is vital information for congress to evaluate. were we to walk away from this historic international agreement that has the participation of all the other major powers and the consumers of iranian oil we would be on our own. if we repudiate this hard fought, carefully crafted diplomatic solution, we'll be in an infinitely weaker position. iran free to go about its business and the support of those other countries that was so vital will melt away. there is a reason why 100 distinguished former administration officials, diplomats, military officials

from all across the political spectrum with backgrounds in democratic and republican administrations alike endorsed the proposal this week. this is the best solution in a difficult part of the world with a country that's been difficult to work with to say the least. it's been involved with bad behavior, and which has been bent on developing the capacity to create a nuclear weapon. we all want to prevent that. at least delay it as long as possible. this agreement achieves that additional time 10 years or more. it has strong enforceable sanctions in the event of failure, and the inspections regime that controls over the iranian nuclear power plant program continue for 10 years or more. some are permanent. this is a watershed moment in american diplomacy. an opportunity to get past the troubled history for decades on a more positive footing. iran to this point has lived up to its agreements and we have watched their nuclear activity being dialed back and openness

expanded which would have been unthinkable three years ago. last, and most important to consider, the opponents of this agreement have no good alternative. they may huff and puff about all options being on the table. but realistically the american public has little appetite for a war with iran. a country bigger than afghanistan and iraq combined, with a population twice as large, well educated and sophisticated. an attack would bring about unthinkable circumstances even if the american public were likely to accept it, which is highly unlikely. and of course the united states will have squandered the alliance with the world's most powerful countries. they are aligned with us today. but it would be difficult if not impossible to them back on our side again if we can't take yes or an answer. congress should stop hyper ventilating, look testified, and move forward to support

diplomacy he as our best chance to prevent a nuclear armed iran and chaos in the middle east. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, for five minutes. mr. brooks: mr. speaker america's policymakers face an information gap that undermines our ability to make the immigration policy decisions needed to protect american lives from the threat posed by illegal aliens. what information gaps? crime statistics that reflect criminal conduct by illegal aliens. the horrifying murder of 32-year-old kate steinle in san francisco has once again put crime by illegal aliens in the national spotlight. but this issue should always be in the spotlight because it daily affects american citizens across the country despite pro-amnesty force's best

efforts to suppress politically inconvenient truth about illegal alien crime in america. the fact is america's crime data for illegal aliens is inadequate. while we have access to federal sentencing data for illegal aliens illegal alien crime data for cities counties, and states is just not there. for example while illegal aliens are roughly 3.5% of america's population, the united states sentencing commission data reflects that out of 74,911 federal sentencing cases illegal aliens committed 17% of drug trafficking, 20% of kidnapping hostage taking 12% of money laundering, 12% of murders and a whopping 74% of drug possession felonies. if this federal data is any indicator, illegal aliens are far more likely to commit violent and dangerous crimes

than the average american or lawful immigrant. the absence of state and local law enforcement data is critical because most heinous crimes, such as murder rape, violent assaults and the like, are prosecuted at the state level. as of today, the federal government does not publicly report state and local illegal alien crime data, thus undermining our understanding of how bad the illegal alien crime problem is and what we must do to address it. a report released this pastp monday july 20, by the center for immigration studies, found that according to census bureau data 2.5 million illegal aliens at the rate of 400,000 per year had been added to america's illegal alien problem since president obama took office. america's policymakers need empirical data showing how many americans are horribly victimized by the millions of

illegal aliens, this and other administrations have allowed into our country. while we have daily access to the endless stream of anecdotal gruesome news reports of yet another illegal alien taking yet another american citizen's life, we need big picture data to rebut the liberal left mantra that illegal aliens are as clean, innocent and pure as freshly fallen snow. for example, in my district which has red stone arsenal, one of the america's premiere military facilities, more americans have been killed by illegal aliens than my district has lost in afghanistan, in iraq, to the islamic state, to al qaeda, and to the taliban combined. so is alabama's fifth congressional district's experience with illegal aliens an anomaly, or is illegal alien crime as bad in the rest of america? mr. speaker, in order to make

good policy decisions america's policymakers need better data. i have introduced a bill to help. my bill, the arrest statistics reporting act does two things. first, it requires that arrest reports already sent to the f.b.i. by state and local governments include the best known immigration status of the arrestee. second, it requires the federal government to publish illegal alien crime data in the f.b.i.'s annual crime statistic reports. this data will better inform the public and lawmakers about illegal alien crime, empower us to make the decisions needed to protect american lives. mr. speaker, honest immigration debate requires the best crime data. my bill, the arrest statistics reporting act, will help us obtain it. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, for five minutes. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, earlier this month americans were riveted by news that infamous drug lord joaquin guzman, better known as el chapo, escaped from a maximum security prison in mexico. it took this spectacular movie style breakout to return mexico and drug cartels to the national attention and that is a problem. when ruthless barbaric criminals terrorize a population halfway around the world, america notices. we rightly rise up the speaker pro tempore: as one to decry the horrific violence perpetrated by isil in syria and react, recoiling in horror at the news of rapes, beheadings and savagery run amuck. when similar violence is visited upon an innocent population in our own back beyond a reasonable doubt, why are we not similarly outraged? earlier this year ida was beheaded by ruthless thugs.

not halfway around the world but in the mexican state of ger rareo, less than 1000 miles from the u.s. border. her death was not an isolated incident nor was it random. she was a candidate for mayor of her town. her husband had been mayor until last year when he was assassinated. a note found near her body warned of similar treatment for other politicians who did not quote, fall in line and was signed, loss rojos, the name of one the guerrero's largest criminal organizations. if violence there sounds familiar, it should. in the town of equala last year 43 students engaged in a peaceful protest were kidnapped, murdered, and cremated in a mass grave. those 43 are but a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of mexicans who have been murdered by mexican drug cartels over the last decade. including at least four candidates and more than a dozen campaign workers during this year's midterm elections.

disturbingly violence against women in particular has skyrocketed and the rate which member are murdered in mexico is double the global average. meanwhile, a cowed and corrupt leadership seems powerless to stop any of this and may even be actively abetting the violence. we know the drug use in the united states has regrettably contributed to the conditions that have allowed this violence to spread. the money that fuels the drug cartels comes in large part from narcotic sales north of the rio grande. just as the drugs flow north, the guns flow south. i have addressed this chamber in support of legislation countering the sale of guns through straw purchasers which are then sent across the border. this mutually destructive trade of guns and drugs cannot be allowed to continue unabated. more sensible treatment of drug addiction at home and more commence gun laws would not only help our own country but also reduce chaos in the

neighborhood. the u.s. has done much to assist mexico in countering cartel violence. primarily through the initiative of counter drug and anti-crime assistance package. since 2008, we provided mexico with over $2.5 billion from the initiative whose strategy focuses on disrupting criminal groups institutionalizing the rule of law, creating a 21st century border, and building strong and resilient communities. but the forums our money supports has been painfully slow in coming. only 25% of the crimes in mexico are reported. fewer than 5% are investigated. and fewer than 2% ultimately move to trial and sentencing. the problem in mexico is not simply a lack of resources, it appears to be a lack of will. the active presence of corruption and official clution squelches free speech, causing citizens to fear their elected

officials, allowing the rule of law to fail. those 43 murdered students appear to have been killed with the knowledge and participation of the local police force on orders from the mayor and his wife. it is a dramatic story but not an unusual one. a story of corruption and impunity in official come. -- officialdom. sadly those who tell the stories, and brave victims willing to speak out too often meet fates 43 murdered students appear to have been killed with the knowledge and participation of the local police force on orders similar to the students. indeed, within the last month, three journalists have been murdered and three different mexican states, joining the tragic toll of more than 50 mexican journalists killed or disappeared since 2007. . i wish i could have a simple solution to these problems. i do not. i do know the strugful of the mexican people for a peaceful, safe and well-governed nation is a struggle as well as ours. we recognize that mexico's problems are also our own. i thank you mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada, mr. hardy, for five minutes. mr. hardy: mr. speaker i rise today to discuss the unfortunate dodd-frank wall street act. this week marks the fifth anniversary of the signing of the law that the democrat answer to the recession that impacted our nation. my state, the state of nevada, was devastated by the meltdown which started with the weakening of the credit standards and erupted into foreclosures that brought our fiscal system to the edge of the cliff. at the peak of the recession, nevada had an unemployment rate of 13.7%. nevadans all over the state were losing their jobs, their homes and their businesses. democratically controlled congress and the democratically controlled white house responded with regulation after regulation.

on the false pretense that the crash was caused by the lack of rules. five years in and what do we have today? we have for the first time in over three decades more small businesses failing than being started. think about that. we have more small business deaths than we have small business births. the lifeblood of our nation lies with small businesses. according to the 2012 data from the small business administration 64% of all private sector jobs were created by small businesses. half of all people employed in this country work for small businesses. i'm going to repeat. we now have more small business deaths than we have small businesses being started. they are being suffocated by 400 new federal regulations. one-size-fits-all rules have impacted small bankers so much we have less community banks now than we had before

dodd-frank. these small community banks serve my constituents. they serve the neighbors of my district. they serve the neighborhoods of our country. these community banks were not the banks making the risky loans. they were building strong relationships with their customers, but now, because of dodd-frank, there are less of them. and how did dodd-frank address fannie mae and freddie mac? it didn't. it didn't reform fannie and freddie. dodd-frank in essence is topdown governance from washington bureaucrats. instead of ending the too-big-to fail regulators it inserted into law. we now have sifis systemically important financial institutions. if a bank is defined as a sifi, it will surely be the first to be bailed out because they are systemically too important.

this presents problems for moral hazard. dodd-frank put into law that they will be bailed out by americans and their hard-earned money. dodd-frank was supposed to end this practice and it was supposed to protect the consumer. but after five years with you now have sifis. we now have less community banks. simply put, our businesses are facing higher borrowing costs and the inability to create jobs. nevada today has an unemployment rate of 6.9%. nevadans don't want more regulations. they want more jobs. like all americans, they want more opportunities. they want access to capital to start their new companies and businesses. mr. speaker, unfortunately the burdensome dodd-frank law is still churning out final rules. americans will continue to face the red tape during this slog

of a recovery, and, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. sanchez, for five minutes. ms. sanchez: thank you mr. speaker. last week, thanks to the leadership of the senate health committee, chairman lamar alexander and ranking member patty murray the senate passed a bipartisan bill known as the every child achieves act that re-authorizes the elementary and secondary education act. this is the law where the federal government has with respect to kindergarten through 12th grade education. and i applaud my senate colleagues for reaching across the aisle and working collectively in good faith to expand access to early childhood education to improve programs for english language learners and ensure accountability in helping our neediest students. it is far from perfect but in

2002 the re-authorization of the same act known as no child left behind, was implemented and it gave this principle that we would look at the students who were falling through the cracks. it meant to serve our poor and minority students and students with disabilities and english learners. and after all let's not forget that the original esea, the original one in 1965 had an exact declaration of policy that said in recognition of the special education needs of children of low-income families. this landmark legislation in 1965 is a civil rights law. it reaffirmed brown vs. board of education. it reaffirmed the 1947 mendez vs. westminster decision which happened in my own district which was the precursor to

brown vs. board. it said, every child has the right to an equal opportunity for a quality education. but let's be honest. we are in the wake of a civil rights movement in this country. when we see tragedies in ferguson to charleston to presidential candidates issuing condemnations to immigrant families who come and who contribute to this country, to milestone victories who -- where we see all individuals throughout the states may choose to marry the ones that they love. we can no longer ignore the social and the economic issues our great nation is currently facing. and it all starts in our classrooms, in the quality of the education, in the fundamental values that we impart to our children. that's why i'm also extremely

disappointed in the house version of the esea. where it limits the opportunity for neediest students. the student success act, this is the one the republicans are putting forward, would take away $3 billion over the next six years from the 32 largest school districts and most diverse school districts in our nation. by the way many of those students being black and latino. and while the senate's every child achieves act accomplishes tremendous feats in expanding access the house bill actually does not. so what do we do? we must make -- we must make sure that the bills that we pass have actions intended in them. the senate bill for example

makes actions optional when cools are not meeting goals while eliminating requirements for states to identify schools that are in need of intervention where its detrimental to the progress of the children. so laws must require timely state action to address the inequities where they persist so we can provide the federal resources and the support to the lowest performing schools. everyone hates talking about accountability, but without it we cannot help our low-performing students get back on track. without clear expectations for reporting inaction, we are doing a disservice to students, these students will fall through the cracks. i look around this room and i'm proud to say that i am a public school kid, and many of us in this chamber are. we are products of our flakes'

-- nation's public school systems and look at us. our communities have chosen us, us to be their voice. our communities have chosen us to be their advocates and to fight for them in the classroom, and i'm sure that each of us have had an administrator, a teacher, a principal who believed in us and put us on the right track so that we might be where we are today. and as i continuously reflect on my own experience, the daughter of poor immigrants from mexico first generation and low income and a child where the original esea was meant to serve, i ask my colleagues let's work together and pass a bill that really helps our children. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as a subcommittee

chair in agriculture i'm committed to safe and affordable food. in recent years there's been increased interests in where food comes from and how it's grown. in my view, this is a movement that's long overdue. there's far too many americans removed from the family farm for generations. agriculture is the backbone for rural america and the success is critical for local economies and to deliver product every american needs on a daily basis. with a growing world demand for food and less americans engaged in farming, science and innovation have become essential components of agriculture and remains paramount to meet increased demands. aside from tractors, combines and physical technology innovation also extends to biotechnology. biotech ensures america will have the safest, most abundant and affordable food supply. as rural populations continue to increase, producing more food on less land will be an

ongoing challenge but one that can be addressed through advances in biotechnology. with this in mind, there's been an ongoing debate and much attention to what have been dubbed g.m.o.'s or genetically modified organisms or crops. g.m.c.'s have provided great benefits to farmers, ranchers, food producers and consumers. for instance, some varieties of g.m.c.'s have host genetic traits that destroy -- g.m. crops had an enormously positive impact on farmers ranchers and food producers and had a positive environmental impact because they have reduced the need for large-scale sprays or open range disttory bution or pesticides or insecticides and

while some question the consumption of g.m.c.'s, the overwhelming consensus from the national academy of sciences, the world health organization and the american medical organization remains. quite simply there is no sound scientific evidence that such crops or foods are harmful to human health or the environment. in fact, a january 2015, study from the pew research center found that 88% of surveyed scientists believe that g.m.c.'s or crops are perfectly safe for human consumption. the lack of a fair and consistent regulatory structure, recently several states have made attempts to mandate all foods as modified organisms. as a result, a patchwork of different state laws have begun to emerge over the labeling requirements of g.m. foods. this is already causing confusion as to how such labeling standards would directly apply to farmers, ranchers, food processors and

yes, also regulators. this patchwork of state laws could create some constitutional questions that should such laws affect interstate commerce and trade. nearly 80% of the food produced in the united states contains some kind of g.m. product and the implications of a state-by-state labeling requirement would be vast. this week the house will consider h.r. 1599, the safe and accurate food labeling act of 2015 in an effort to address this confusion. because there are so many myths surrounding this debate, let's start what the bill does. this legislation is squarely centered on state labeling efforts. while the bill does preclude states from enacting their own g.m. labeling laws, it also creates a federal framework for premarket review and labeling of g.m. foods. or in other words, the legislation requires the f.d.a. to conduct a review of any and all new plant or seed varieties before such products are commercially available. the bill would also require standards for defining whether a product is of the g.m. or

natural. the legislation does not prohibit states from outright banning g.m. crops or writing new relevant laws, but what the bill will do is give farmers, ranchers and food producers much-needed certainty by establishing a unified and clear regulatory process. as a co-sponsor of h.r. 1599, i rise in support of the legislation and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on it. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. green, for five minutes. mr. green: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i stand in the well of the united states house of representatives today to call to the attention of the nation the death of mrs. sandra bland, something that has been

widely published, videos have been shown, people can draw their own conclusions, but i stand here today because i want to announce that i join the many requesting that the justice department impose a thorough investigation, a author rose investigation -- a thorough investigation. there are some who contend that the justice department should not look into this death. i differ. the district attorney himself in walla county this is where she died, the district attorney himself is looking into this and has said the death will be treated as a murder investigation. a person who is stopped for a minor traffic violation should

not end up dead. i think we should all agree that the basic premise is that if you're stopped for a minor traffic violation, even if you're taken into custody you should not be found dead in your jail cell. it is said that she died from self-inflicted asphyxiation. a very polite way to say she committed suicide. under these questionable circumstances the district attorney investigating. it is said that the f.b.i. is looking into it. it is said that local constable larry will look into it in the state of texas. why not have the justice department look into it? this is what the justice department is for. to look into these questionable circumstances of which too many

have occurred as of late. quite frankly, over a substantial period of time in our country. so this is a questionable case and i believe this is a case ripe for the justice department to investigate. and i want to let the family know -- by the way, i don't know them. i didn't know miss bland. i have no association with them. this is not about her ethnicity. it's not about her gender. but i want the family to know that i am in sympathy with them. and i feel a certain amount of pain. i cannot feel their pain, but i feel a certain amount of pain because i believe that if i had

a daughter and if my daughter was arrested for a minor traffic violation or as a result of an initial stop for a minor traffic violation and my daughter was found dead in a jail cell sometime thereafter with an allegation of sue -- suicide, i would want that case investigated. and i believe most people of good will would want to see an investigation. so i'm addressing those who contend that there should be no justice department investigation. i have great sympathy with this family. i want you to know that. and i believe there ought to be such an investigation. if this case isn't ripe for a justice department investigation i'm not sure that we can conjure up in our minds a case that is more ripe under these circumstances. finally this mr. speaker i think we have to ponder the question have we accorded the

constabulary the right to do wrong? such that wrongdoing can be justified because it has been codified in the law that you have the right to do certain things. i think we have to ponder this question because what happened in this case is highly questionable and highly suspect. and i say this as a student of jurisprudence member of the bar, former judge of a court that held probable cause hearings. i have seen my share. but i know that in this case the justice department should investigate. and i will yield back the balance of my time and i will continue to pray for this family and pray that justice will be done. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you mr. chairman.

i come to the floor this morning to talk for a few minutes about the primary issue that my constituents are talking about right now, and that is the issue of national security. and homeland security. and how -- what is happening in the world is affecting our community's -- communities right where we live and work, where our children go to school. this is what everyone wants to know that we are requesting to -- going to be safe, that our children are going to be safe, and that future generations are going to be safe here. in the united states. and as we look at these issues, illegal immigration, as we look at isis and the threats that are carried out such as what happened in chattanooga as we look at the iran deal, we know this affects where we live and work. today i want to spend just a few minutes talking about the

iran nuclear deal. as one of my members of the retired military organization, moa, one of the members came up to me saturday as i was talking to him, he said masha, this is a bad, bad, deal. i have to agree with him. it is. of course he speaks from the perspective of having served, worn the uniform, served, having had a full military career. interesting. they know a bad deal when when they see a bad, bad, deal. i have to agree with him. it is. one. in this deal that is proposed, they see the tenets of a very bad deal. let's look at a few of these exobents -- components that will not serve us and future generations, our national

security, our homeland security well. as you review this deal, you see that iran retains the ability to enrich uranium. that does not stop. it is going to continue on. we can already see how a nuclear iran would create an arms race in an area which is already volatile. any capability to enrich uranium may cause a nuclear arms race to happen and further destabilize the middle east. see, we are not prohibiting them from doing anything. all we are doing is basically setting a date certain 10 15, 20 years down the road. now, think about your children and grandchildren. 10 15, 20 years down the road. if iran has a nuclear weapon, what are they going to say at that point in time? how is it going to affect them? think about the region. a saudi official has said politically it would be completely unacceptable to have iran with a nuclear capability

and not the kingdom, and i'm quoting a saudi official's remarks. any deal must have full transparency and we need to know that there can be and will be because there must be any time, anywhere inspections. and it is my fear that a deal with iran is not going to accomplish this. the "wall street journal" reported yesterday, mr. chairman i hope that -- can i submit this, i want to submit this for the record iran's inspections in 24 days, not close. "wall street journal" article, i commend it to my colleagues to read as they review this and think about how they are going to vote on this deal. the "wall street journal" stated and i'm quoting, the obama administration assures americans that the iran deal grants access within 24 days to undeclare but suspected nuclear

sites, end quote. when you look at the joint comprehensive plan of action reveals that actually it's going to be closer to months. they can end up holding inspectors at bay for months. and again from the journal i'm reading, and quoting. so from the moment the iaea first tips its hand about what it wants to inspect, likely three more months may pass. now mr. chairman, i ask you, does this sound like the type of deal that you would want to make with a country whose people recently were out chanting death to america and burning our flag to celebrate the muslim holy day? the supreme leader in attendance at that rally. does this sound like the type of deal that should be approved by our secretary of state and

supported by our president? why? why would they want to do this? why would there be a deal that sets a date certain, kind of lays out that path, simply put there is no way, no way, that we can trust iran to allow inspectors unfettered access to both civilian and military sites to verify that they are not pushing a nuclear weapon. so we would be left with wondering if if they are going to hold up their end of this so-called nuclear deal. a senior commander in the revolutionary guard has recently said that inspectors will not be allowed on the military sites. general hussein salami, and i'm quoting, we will respond with hot led. we will not roll out the red carpet for the enemy.

in addition it's extremely concerning that iran is asking for sanctions on weapons sales, ballistic missile technology transfers to be lifted. it's a bad bad deal. as my constituent said. i commend further study to my colleagues. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. without objection the article reference will be included in the record. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio mrs. beatty, for five minutes. mrs. beatty: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. beatty: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to join many of my democratic colleagues to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the voting rights act of 1965. and to ask this house to pass legislation for voting rights now. mr. speaker, this was the first nation in our history to be founded with a purpose.

great phrases of that purpose are still being said and quoted around the world from the souls and hearts of americans. all men are created equal. give me liberty or give me death. those words were not to be revered as meaningless, to ring hollow over the years. today i join my colleagues as guardians of that liberty and advocates for voting rights legislation. mr. speaker, 50 years ago before congress president l.b.j. said i want to be the president who helped the poor find their way and who protected the right of every citizen to vote in every election. every citizen must have an equal right to vote. there is no reason we can excuse the denial of that right. there is no duty that weighs more heavily on us than the

duty we have to ensure that right. end of quote. mr. speaker, from the steps of the lincoln memorial colleagues as guardians of that liberty and advocates for voting rights legislation. martin luther king delivered his give us the ballot. that speech urging the president and members of the congress to ensure voting rights for african-americans, he indicted both political parties for betraying the cause of justice. he said, let us be reminded of these words, the democrats have betrayed it by capitulating to the prejudice and undemocratic practices of the southern dixicrats. the republicans have betrayed it by capitulating to the blatant hypocrisy of the right wing. reactionary northerners. these men so often have a high blood pressure of words and an anemia of deeds. today i ask democrats and republicans to come together

for voting rights legislation now. over the past 50 years, our conry has come a long way to end -- country has come a long way to end the jim crow integration of our public schools and the election of our first black president. while we have made great progress over the past 50 years, we must continue to fight for justice and equality at the polls. in the past few presidential leakses, we have seen long lines intimidation, and voter suppression. . we must remain diligent in rooting out voter discrimination because of the supreme court's misguided decision in 2013 in shelby county vs. holder matter. and the failure of congress to remedy this dismantling of the nation's fundamental right. we must be more vigilant than ever.

two years ago in shelby, the supreme court struck down a critical part of the voting rights act. some would say it cut the heart of the voting rights act by finding section 4 unconstitutional. this was a setback to our country and to our democracy by removing much-needed voter protections and disenfranchised -- to disenfranchise communities. our democracy was founded on the audacious idea that every eligible citizen should have access to the ballot box. this is why i am proud to stand with over 70 bipartisan congressional colleagues as an original co-sponsor of the voting rights advancement act of 2015, h.r. 2867, which would restore and advance the

critical voter protections taken away by the shelby decision. mr. speaker, it is time for us to bring voting rights legislation now to the floor. more than ever with just seven legislative days left, we head back to our districts for our august work period. congress should have the honor, the progress of being able to allow us to say to our constituents, to this nation that our country has made sure that there is equal rights and equal treatment. let us work together on advancing important legislative priorities such as the voting rights amendment act. thank you, mr. speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren, for five minutes. mr. hultgren: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to remember and celebrate a monumental

achievement our nation's space program reached 46 years ago this week. on july 20 1969, neal armstrong, buzz auld rin, michael collins and the entire nasa team. following president's charge to land a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth before the decade was over nasa put their talent and treasure into making that dream a reality. no longer was human discovery and exploration limited to our own planet. the moon, which had always been our human ability to reach was now within our grasp. this giant leap for mankind propelled american space exploration and inspired generations to pursue science and research as a way of life. today, human space exploration and discovery sciences are engrained in american society and are prime demonstrations of our nation's exceptional nature. as americans it's in our

d.n.a. to push the boundaries and frontiers of knowledge developing new technologies and expertise is vital as we consider a mission to mars, take close-up pictures to pluto and send robots throughout our solar system. the new generation must now work to fulfill the dreams and ambitions of that first group of space explorers. let us encourage our children to think seriously about careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. careers that could lead them to become actual rocket scientists or astronauts. bold, long-term commitments to the programs and projects that made nasa and our space program great will help inspire our kids. the apollo 11 mission changed america and the world and we remain forever grateful to those who were a part of that mission. 46 years ago if the unthinkable occurred and the astronauts never made it back to work,

president nixon had a speech prepared to deliver to the nation. if the worst happened, the president would have said, in ancient days, men looked at the stars and saw their heroes in the constellations. in modern times, we do much the same, but our heroes are epic men of flesh and blood. i was honored to meet the members of the apollo 11 crew, including neal armstrong, before he died. indeed, these men were epic heroes of mind. many of us grew up in an era where we were proud to be the nation that sent men to the moon and we still are. nothing can change that fateful decade of discovery coupled with frustration, trial coupled with error, all resulting in that historic world-changing mission. i want our kids and grandkids to look back and be proud citizens of the nation that made our moon hospitable, sent astronauts to mars and keep sending spacecraft past the

outer reaches of our solar system. renewed vigor in our country's space program will ensure we continue to make mankind-sized leaps for years to come. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton, for five minutes. mr. tipton: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, minds in colorado's third congressional district provide not only critical jobs, they also provide reliable affordable electricity on which countless americans rely. the future of one such mind operated by one is now in jeopardy after is federal judge sided with a group notorious for filing lawsuits at the expense of taxpayers who often foot the litigation bill. emerging the -- i'm merging the department of the interior to stop the pending closure of the mine. and i want to thank cory

gardner for his partner in this effort. the federal district court for the district of colorado issued in determining the office of surface mining failed to comply with the national environmental policy act of 2007 when it initiated a mine plan for approval of the coal mine. the court gave o.s.c. 120 days to prepare a new analysis and issue a new decision. if o.s.m. does not complete the process in 120 days the court stated it would vacate the mine plan, effectively shutting the mine down on september 6. in spite repeated instance from myself, corey guarders in and surrounding local communities they decided to not appeal against the court's ruling. does the executive branch not have the real requirement to be able to defend its permitting actions? of course it does. the federal government must vigorously defend the legality of the actions and leave the policy debates over the role of

coal in the legislative and rulemaking proceedings where the debates belong. so here's where we stand? a september 6 deadline rapidly approaches, the livelihoods of thousands of northwest coloradans are in peril as they rely on the administration with the track record of a tax on the mining industry and affordable electricity to do the right thing. unfortunately, the administration hasn't done much to help our concerns. a mine closure would jeopardize jobs and economic activity. while 220 jobs may not sound like much to the town of craig, population 9,400 that has significant economic impact in the community. to properly be able to understand the scale of this potential catastrophe, this is the equivalent to the president's hometown of chicago, shedding 63,000 well-paying jobs. the adverse effects of shutting down this mine go beyond the jobs at the mine that would be lost. coal produced by this mine located in two counties is used

to generate power at the craig system station. the mine is a critical supplier of western colorado's energy. it provides reliable, affordable electricity in much of the western half of the state. last week i attended the meeting to discuss the future of the mine with the secretary of interior, sally jewell, bureau of land management director and a number of colorado community leaders including the commissioner john kinkade and mayor of craig. while it would have been preferable for the secretary to make time to be able to meet with miners who are facing the loss of their livelihood, she did meet with this group and i hope she received a better understanding and the important impact of the mine on the impact of the economy in northwest colorado. i was pleased to be able to hear secretary jewell assure us before the meeting that the department of interior is on schedule to be able to complete a new environmental assessment by the court's deadline of

september 6. and if for some reason they fail to meet that schedule they will request an extension. i hope the secretary realizes that the decisions made in washington have lasting impacts on everyday working americans. unfortunately, we've seen repeated attempts by this administration to impose drastic and in some cases outright unattainable mandates on the existing electricity sources. communities such as craig have expressed concerns that these proposed regulations will work to the detriment of the local economies by shutting down local power plants, negatively affecting colorado's mining industry and needlessly burdening colorado families and businesses with higher energy costs. and yet here we are on the cusp of leading 220 honest, hardworking people without a paycheck. this battle offers a -- an all too familiar -- for a healthy and growing economy can wreak

havoc on the everyday lives of coloradans. the careful balance between environmental protection and economic prosperity is regrettably missing from this administration's policies. the most troubling part of all of this is the effects that these misguided regulations won't actually result in cleaner air overall but will jeopardize reliability of the electrical grid and have severe economic impact. the people of moffett county, they are the people feeling these impacts. the people of the county, they need to know they are not alone in this effort. i am committed to doing everything within my power to be able to fight for affordable, reliable and responsible energy production. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new jersey, mrs. watson coleman, for five minutes. mr. cole: --

mrs. watson coleman: i ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. watson coleman: thank you mr. speaker. this house we will consider legislation on coal ash that will families and communities in new jersey in danger. we need strong regulation on coal ash waste, poor management practices in states like pennsylvania and new york that border new jersey affect my constituents' lives. the delaware river provides drinking water to one-third of new jersey's municipalities. in 2005, martin's creek power plant in pennsylvania spilled 100 million gallons of coal ash across 10 acres into the delaware contaminating that drinking water with arsenic. towns surrounding the delaware towns that depend on the river for fishing and recreational activity that drives their economies were devastated. in new york the e.p.a. found that coal ash on the power

station had contaminated groundwater with iron manganese aluminum and at least 10 other dangerous chemicals. h.r. 1734 not only fails to protect communities from toxic pollution, it undermines legitimate efforts to protect our communities. i urge my colleagues to vote against it. all of our constituents deserve better. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mooney, is recognized for five minutes. mr. mooney: thank you mr. speaker. few institutions are as powerful and as secret tiff as the federal reserve -- secretive as the federal reserve. they impact the prices at the grocery stores, the ability to get the capital necessary to create jobs and the value of investments the average american relies on to provide for their families, educate their children and enjoy a

secure retirement. despite the fed's enormous power, congress continues to allow the fed to conduct monetary policy in secret. while the general accountability office is allowed to perform limited audits of the fed, it is forbidden by law from auditing -- full audits. in other words congress has not allowed them to allow them to examine the fed's monetary policy its most important function. to allow them to do it in secret is a failure of congress' duty to carry out meaningful oversight of the federal reserve. congress and the people we represent diserve to know the full truth about the federal reserve. this is why one of my first acts upon coming to this house was to co-sponsor the federal reserve transparency act, h.r.

24 introduced by my friend, thomas massie of kentucky. this simple, two-page bill authorizes a full audit of the fed's monetary functions and is properly known as audit the fed. passage of this bill will allow the american people to finally get a better picture of the fed's operations including its dealings with large financial institutions and foreign central banks. . contrary to the claims of the fed and its supporters nothing in this bill gives congress any new authority over the federal reserve. it simply allows congress to get a retrospective look at how the fed carries out monetary policy so congress and the people can fully understand, evaluate and oversee the fed's actions. audit the fed has twice passed

the house by overwhelming majorities and supported by almost 80% of the american people. yet former senate majority leader harry reid blocked the bill from coming to the floor for a vote in the u.s. senate. senate reid's replacement as jorlte, senator mitch mcconnell, is a co-sponsor of senate 264 the senate version of audit the fed, which has been introduced by kentucky senator rand paul. so it is finally time for a vote in the u.s. senate as well. passage of audit the fed is more important than ever given the federal reserve's actions since the 2008 financial crisis. following the financial meltdown, the fed commenced an unprecedented program of trillion dollar bailouts for wall street. the fed's poor track record

over the past decade is not an irregularity, since the fed's creation, the dollar has lost 97% of its purchasing power. allowing the federal reserve to continue operating in secrecy may benefit certain well placed individuals but it has not benefited my constituents in west virginia. it is time to bring transparency to monetary policy. it is time to tear down the fed's wall of secrecy. it is time to audit the fed. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a

>> mr. chairman. thank you for letting him go over. thank you. >> mr. scott, five minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. welcome. mr. second, first of all mr. secretary, great being with you in georgia back in march when you came and we had wonderful time. mr. secretary, my state of georgia produces more poultry

than any other state in the united states. on the average day the georgia poultry industry produces 29 million pounds of chicken 6.3 million pounds of eggs, and 5.5 million pounds of hatching eggs. so if you can -- as you can see, we have a very profound economic and business agriculture impact with our poultry. i wanted to ask you with the migratory season coming, and birds coming south, can you tell us exactly what your department is doing to help thwart this ambian -- ambian bird flu in getting down to the south? secretary vilsack: congressman,

we are taking a number of steps. let me start with something that congressman peterson has been involved in and helpful with and that is the development of a vaccine that could potentially be of assistance. we are making progress. we have a seed strain that appears to be fairly successful with reference to chickens. once the tests are completed they'll go to a company that basically is capable of producing the vaccine. and they in turn will work with other companies that are working on vaccines to begin the process of developing commercially. we have requested resources to be able to allow for stockpiling, which i know congressman peterson's interested in us doing. that's first and foremost one thing we are doing to try to focus. the second thing we are doing is if we are able to obtain a vaccine that's 100% effective, we want to work with our trading partners so we don't discourage trade as a result of the utilization of vaccine in very targeted ways.

mr. scott: let me ask you, what is being done specifically to help the growers? secretary vilsack: one thing the vaccine. the second is to focus on biosecurity provision that is would allow them to tighten up their operations to reduce the risk. there is not a lot you can do about changing the flight of birds. mr. scott: let me ask you, mr. secretary, what about funding? what about helping with funding on this? there's certain funds that the aphis is responsible for. i want to know are any of these funds going to help the growers on the ground? secretary vilsack: yes. we have already committed well over $500 million for assistance to growers in two primary categories. one, indemnifying for loss and

two, helping to pay for the reasonable expenses of cleanup and disinfection. we are also working closely with the industry to try to create a type of biosecurity set of protocols as possible. so that we do the best job we can to mitigate the consequences and spread of this if it occurs again. mr. scott: you're saying there are funds that can be directed to help the growers on the ground. secretary vilsack: they actually have been. mr. scott: i want to compliment you working with my alma mater, which is tremendous, that land in florida i think will be the largest acquirement of land to help beginning farmers for any of the colleges. i just want to thank you for that. while i'm on the subject of the

1890's mr. secretary your assistant secretary for civil rights, mr. joe leonard, joined with many of us in the concern for getting more african-american students going into the business of agriculture and agriculture business. and we are very, very, very much onboard with that. i want you to also tell him how much we appreciate him providing that leadership to help us to get funds to be able to help these students to be able to go into careers and agribusiness. one of the things we hope we are able to do is be able to tweak the language in the farm bill that will allow these 1890's to be able to add the area of student scholarships

and loan forgiveness much as we did for our veterinarians. as you remember, we sponsored legislation, got that passed, saw a shortage of veterinarians, and we actually did help them with loan forgiveness. i wanted to make you aware of that. certainly ask for your support and help as we move forward on this initiative to help african-american students as well. thank you, sir. >> mr. chairman, five seconds. congressman, there are -- secretary vilsack: : there 550 scholars from these 1890 universities that are getting scholarship and assistance of a job at the usda. we'll continue to work that young people have help at usda as well as agribusiness. >> mr. kelly five minutes. mr. kelly: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary, for being here. first going back, i thank you first for your vigilence once

you found out there was something going wrong and money was being appropriated and jumping on that and taking immediate action. however, to me the former prosecutor, there is no greater crime than the violation of the public trust and just basically corruption. so i thank you but i'm very disappointed our justice system did not either civilly or criminally punish someone for abusing that much of the public's money. what policies and procedures have you taken now to ensure that we don't take as long to discover fraud and abuse by your department. have you done anything, what steps have you taken to ensure we get to that quicker? secretary vilsack: one thing we have done with reference to the strike force is to basically take a look at the recommendations that o.i.g. has recommended and basically we are following through on each one of those recommendations. we have a completely different

system for competitive review and competitive grants in terms of the 2501 grants that we are concerned. there are actually two sets of eyes that look on this. there is panel that's not connected to usda specifically that reviews the applications. there is also a secretary panel that reviews the mathematical computations for determination much competitiveness. so that -- of competitiveness. so that process is much better than it was. in temples midas, we have fundamentally changed the way which we deal with i.t. one of the problems we confronted when i became secretary is that each missionary of usda had its own c.i.o. operating relatively independently of one another. that has changed. we now have a process in which everyone is sort of working in a collaborative and innovative way. we know what the right-hand is always doing and the left hand. we have also created an e-board that basically reviews projects that requires updates and is

willing and able to ask the difficult questions. we have solved the issue to a certain extent of the different vision between kansas city and d.c. and we have put a project manager in charge of each of these major projects so that i know that there is someone personally spobs for oversight. those people are meeting with me on a regular basis. i have monthly meetings on midas. i have monthly meetings on a.r.c.. and i'm going to continue to have those meetings. i have monthly meetings on our efforts at blueprint which is designed to create savings within and more efficient government. there is a lot going on in that space that didn't go on in 2009 and 2010. mr. kelly: thank you, mr. secretary. on the supplemental nutrition assistance program, how is -- how are you working with studies to ensure or anti-fraud efforts, both you and the

states have work, how are you working with states to bolster that process? secretary vilsack: two responses. the frayed rate in snap is little over 1%. it's historically at low rates. significantly lower than it was five years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago. two reasons, one, we are working more collectively with states. we are providing states with better training. we are data mining information. there are seven million transactions in snap a dafmente we are using computer technology to identify where there may be potential problems. for example, we saw a problem with lost cards. people coming in every other month saying i lost my card. lost my card. we have a process we piloted in north carolina, very successful basically advising folks when they have had multiple cards lost that, hey, this is a problem, and you may be violating the law. we have seen a significant decrease in the number of -- we did over 700,000 investigations and interviews on a personal basis, over 40,000 people were

disqualified from snap as a result of those investigations. and we are constantly looking at the 260,000 businesses that are snap eligible. and about 1,400 of those were basically stopped from doing business because they were involved in activities that they shouldn't be involved in. there is an ongoing effort. we obviously still have work to do. we have teams now in place, additional staff dedicated to this. we are going to continue to work on it. but when you're dealing with as many transactions and many people, there is still work to be done. mr. kelly: thank you, mr. secretary. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. thank you, mr. lujan grisham. miss lujan grisham: it's nice to have you, mr. secretary, thank you also for participating in program review and program support and visiting my home state of new mexico. i actually have a similar line of questioning and i appreciate

that you spent so much time with my colleagues, kelly and yoho, on figuring out where's the balance? you don't want to throw out a program. the outreach programs and the strike force initiative and beginning ranchers and farmers. these are the kinds of initiatives that in a state like new mexico are not only incredibly meaningful, if they are implemented correctly, we don't have waste or abuse in those programs but are critical. we have the average age of our farmers now is 60 and over. and i appreciate that you have had another internal review clooking at discriminatory practice and looking at making sure you move the department forward in being clear about your relationship with these state like new mexico are not only incredibly meaningful, if communities. and i'm grateful for that. i think there's a lot of work to be done in those programs. looking being a forward thinking and proactive so that it's not a hotline tip that we are thinking maybe about random

reviews of certain programs and even in doing that, so that it's not particularly focused on waste and abuse because the intent isn't to to try to find programs that don't work, although we want that information, we want accountability we want staff to be held accountable every time there is a purposeful or there's conduct that creates accountability issues in taxpayer funded programs, but in addition, and as important, is making sure that these programs work in the way that they are designed to. if they are not, to readdress that so that they can. because those initiatives, both come interesting the department as identified strategies and methods that will make a difference for future farmers, and growing food for this country, but also responding to ideas that come from our constituents directly in this

committee. is there anything we have missed in this dialogue that helps you have a relationship, particularly with this committee, but everyone, to really address both the accountabilities that we are holding folks accountable, including in the private sector and including about those claw backs and making sure they are not involved in the mismanagement of programs, and doing everything we can to highlight that usda is leading the federal example for private sector and including about those claw backs and making sure they are not involved in the mismanagement of programs, and doing everything we can to highlight that usda is leading the federal example for best practices and making these programs work for their directly in this committee. intended beneficiaries. secretary vilsack: i think we are in a much different place than we were in 2008 when o.a.o. was created. we have a receipt for service system in place so people can prove they went into an office, they didn't get, they -- didn't get help, they don't have a problem. we don't remember him coming n he has a receipt for service or receipt for request for service. we put minority members on county committees which has helped. we have seen the leaks of a lot of those north members occur after their selection. that's a good thing. the strike force i think is in a much better place and more effective. i would say the one thing that you could potentially look at

is something that the chairman raised in his question, or my answer, and that is at what level will you require before action can be taken? in other words, is that standard of a criminal judgment and civil judgment, is that the proper standard or the proper bar that has to be crossed before you can take action? i don't know. i think that's something that you-all may want to talk about. it may be that's a bright enough line that makes it easy for people to know when to and not to hold people accountable. but it makes it pretty hard, right, to proper bar that has to be crossed before you can take action? i don't know. i think that's -- other than removing somebody from office or asking them to leave the department, it makes them -- it a little difficult if that's the bar. that's something you may want to look at. ms. lujan grisham: i appreciate that. we have had these conversations

about some of the differences between federal employment and federal contracting systems. and other government systems, local, level and state. i inherited an agency in the 1990's that couldn't account for a million dollars which at the time was 10% of our total cubt. -- budget. and we dismissed almost half of the work force. it was difficult in a civil service environment but it was warranted. and you need to have the flexibility to have a hard line when you need a hard line and the opportunity to retool, redirect, and retrain employees who are working hard sometimes when a program is not flexible enough to meet the needs of its constituents. i total cubt. applaud the chairman and look forward to more conversations of that nature to get it right. >> the gentlelady yield back. mr. davis for five minutes. mr. davis: hi, mr. secretary. first off i want to thank you again for coming in here. you have always been open and

sometimes brutally honest with your answers. i appreciate your participation in this oversight hearing today. it's been great to work with you and many of your staff at the usda on a wide variety of issues where we don't agree on every single issue. one thing i found out about you personally and also the usda is that you are willing to listen to all sides. thank you for that. you know it wouldn't be a hearing without you coming here without me bringing up the school nutrition program. i do want to thank you. i want to thank the department for actually bringing about some flexibility. i think we can do more. i look forward to working with you on that. i would like to invite you to come out to one of our schools and talk to some of the folks on the ground in illinois about the program. your folks have done that. they have done a great job. i know we are working together to make it even better. before i get into the oversight question, i do want to bring up one issue, not related to

school nutrition but summer meal program. i visit as many summer meal sites as i can and i know we have a concern with the lack of participation because of some transportation issues. both in rural areas that i serve and some of the smaller urban areas that i serve, too. then other urban areas i don't serve. can you give me any suggestions on how we might be able to increase participation in the summer meal program that you and i can work together and make happen? p secretary vilsack: i would say two things in response. i appreciate your acknowledgement of our team at f.n.s. to work with you and issues involving the school lunch program. two things, the e.p.t. program we have in a pilot we believe does effectively deal with the issue of transportation in remote areas because it basically provides an alternative to a concrete specific site that a youngster has to go to. it gives that family a little more flexibility to get the food to basically provide summer meals. an extension of that program might be in order.

the second thing would be for -- to work with us and direct us to be a bit more flexible in terms of the actual physical site. right now we are -- we have a fairly narrow view of where these kids need to congregate. and i have been encouraging our team to look at creative ways to be more flexible so that inted of--instead of forcing kids to come to us, we figure out where they are to begin with and provide mobile opportunities. some of that has happened. we probably could do more. mr. davis: anything i can do to be helpful in offering suggestions on that flexibility based upon my visits in my district. i'm happy to help and i appreciate your willingness to do so, sir. i do want to ask you one quick oversight question. my colleague, mr. yoho, alluded to i.t. issues in the past. i just want to know what has the usda done to -- what steps have you taken to implement some i.t. solutions to correct

some of the problems that have been discussed here today? what have you learned in best practices from the private sector. is there any issues that you see on the horizon that we might be able to assist with? secretary vilsack: when i came into this department, i asked to send an email to the employees to introduce myself. and i was told that i couldn't do that. i thought, that can't be. clearly i could send an email to an employee. sir, you can send an email but you can't send a single email, you have to do 17 separate emails. i said what do you mean 17? we have 17 separate email systems. well we can go into a long detailed conversation about how many problems there are with that model. but we spent a considerable period of time. we now have a single email system which obviously provides greater security and allows us to save money at the same time.

one thing we learned from the private sector is an effort to try to strategicically source our technology. again, i mentioned the fact we had silos individual c.i.o.s. they were off buying different systems and hardware and software that weren't necessarily compassible. we have a strategic sourcing initiative where basically before you do something you better find out who else is doing the same thing, and maybe you can purchase in bulk. by the way, before you even do, that how about checking with other missionaries to determine whether they are buying the same thing tate. which case you could save substantial money. there is a focus on that. there is a focus on consistency. we spent a good deal of time in terms of cyberissues reviewing our systems, identifying and creating authentication systems that are much, much tighter than they were six months ago. mr. davis: thank you. >> miss pulaski for five

minutes. >> thank you. this hearing is very timely and much needed. i appreciate so much the secretary's having not just being forthcoming but having a depth of information that he's able to provide the committee with. ms. plaskett: mr. secretary, there's been quite a bit of discussion about the office of advocacy and outreach created in part to avoid the wholesale entire classes of rural development not being able to receive services. but i wanted to know if you could speak a little bit about and if you had information as to the penetration of minority farmers in the growth of agricultural exports? i know that under your leadership the agency has really grown tremendously the amount of exports that our farmers have been able to be a part of in being able to send their goods off outside the

united states. and i didn't know if there had been any data correlated, compiled, or any information that lets us know how much of that is really being able to go to businesses that are owned by minorities and minority farmers. secretary vilsack: as you were asking the question, congresswoman, it occurred to me that most of the activity and progress we have made with majority producers recently has been in the local and regional market. in other words, within the u.s. creating co-ops and doing business with local restaurants and local grocery stores and so forth. you ask a very interesting question. i don't have the answer specifically. we do have a breakdown of the number of small businesses we do business with. the minority-owned business that is we generally do business with at usda. but i don't know that we necessarily have a break down of how frequently african-american producers, for

example, would benefit from and export. i would say my guess is that there's not a great deal for the following reasons. why, most of our experts are bulk, substantial amount are bulk commodities. which play to the strengths of large-scale ag producers. number two, if there is an opportunity, it may be in the there's not a organic space. i think a loft minority producers are getting into this space with the equivalentcy agreements we have been able to negotiate with europe, japan, korea, mexico, canada. there's now new opportunities potentially for exports that might be easier to participate in. we have been working with the commerce department to try to create a streamline process for companies to export. there's so many -- so view companies in this country actually export. less than 5% of the overall companies. and most of them only export to one country. we are trying to figure out ways which we can help small businesses get in the export

game more effectively. i'm happy to go back to our team and ask specifically your question. my sense is that you're probably not going to be -- ms. plaskett: i know in the virgin islands the issue of organic as well as fancy foods is the area our farmers would be most interested in. the types of products that we would produce that would be outside of our local markets would be in the fancy foods the tamarins mangos, and those products. but there's one thing you mentioned that was really important as well in our area is when you talk about local and regional marketing and local and regional produce. because i find that one other thing i hear quite frequently from our local farmers is not having the resources to assist them with processing. having cooperatives but not being able to do the value added to those products. what resources have you seen being sent out to those areas in that respect?

secretary vilsack: two programs come find, maybe three. the local and regional promotion program, and to searn extent the specialty crop block grant program administered through the state and territories are areas where you could get resources. think a loft what we'll do, congresswoman i'll have my team get in touch with you and would encourage you to do what a number of folks have done recently is come down, have your team come down to usda. we put together a half day presentation of all the programs. i think you'll be quite surprised how many opportunities there are. ms. plaskett: that would be great. i would be remiss to not mention that of course that we would very much appreciate you and your staff and others coming down to the territory. one of the things you talked about is something that's very dear to us which is your child poverty nishtifment presently there are about 31% of the children in the virgin islands live in poverty. we are very interested in our farmers, as well as our local

government on how do we have our farmers be able to participate in feeding those children through the school lunch program, as my colleague discussed, and other areas to be able to serve those children. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. allen, five minutes. mr. allen: thank you, mr. chairman. i just came from a markup, mr. chairman. my mind is not all there. we are back. mr. secretary, thank you for being here this morning. we have a lot going on here today. just wanted to ask a couple of questions on the o.a.o. strike force pilot program. u.s.d.a. officials awarded the cooperative agreements noncompetitively and they awarded them to unqualified

community organizations, handpicked by political appointee reed. according to the i.g., some of these community organizations were created just months before the award was made. these organizations allowed approximately 300,000 to expire . the o.i.g. recommended recovering that sum. can you tell me what the status of that recommendation is? secretary vilsack: $233,000 has been recovered. we are currently in the process of establishing proof to the -- there's an issue involving $67,000. we believe it still is owed. the entity that we are dealing with believes they have already paid t we are in the process of trying to convince them that they still owe us $67,000. $233,000 has been recovered. mr. allen: another question in the district of course our folks are worried about the ambian flu.

we haven't -- avian flu. we haven't had that problem down south yet in georgia. but they are concerned with the migration of wild birds to the south over the winter. anything we doing to try to stop that? secretary vilsack: i think there are two things that can be done. one is to develop a vaccine and make sure that if we are able to develop an effective vaccine our trading partners don't hold it against us for using it. that's still an open question and we have been working with a number of countries today to get them convinced to do this on a -- to ban regionally as opposed to the entire country. and, two working with the industry to identify additional biosecurity initiatives and steps that could foningsly be taken to mitigate the risk of spread of this. and then three, i suppose, is to continue to focus on the

most efficient way of dealing with it if it does hit in terms of disposal, in terms of depopulation so we minimize the risk that can occur if we don't do that properly or in a timely way. a mr. allen: where are we with the vaccine? secretary vilsack: there is a seed strain that's been developed on chickens. cross your fingers, hope it is 100% effective for turkeys. once that occurs the seed strain will be provided to the virus company that has basically the license agreement. they in turn will then begin the process of manufacturing and working with other vaccine companies that would want to purchase the license to be able to produce it. we have asked o.m.b. for additional resources to make sure, i think it's o.m.b., to make sure that we have sufficient resource to be -- to begin stockpiling that vaccine. we are also working with, as i said earlier, our foreign

friends we had a meeting in baltimore with over 30 countries came with representatives to talk to them with-b the appropriate way of banning poultry if we have this. it's not fair to your poultry producers because there is an incident in oregon or iowa to ban production from you. so we are continuing to work on that as well. the last thing we are trying to do is convince congress this is a long-term issue. because i am pretty sure this isn't the only time we'll have to deal with something like this to see if we can complete the funding for the poultry lab improvements that are necessary in the modernization of that lab. mr. allen: will this be available soon? secretary vilsack: i would hope it would be. but i don't want to speak for the company in terms of how quickly they can turn it around. i'm pretty impressed with the fact that in a relatively short period of time we have come a long way. the previous virus was 60% effective, which meant if you

treated 100 pird, 60 would be ok, 40 wouldn't. that's not good enough. you have to get it to 100% or close to be effective. mr. allen: i'm about out of time. i won't get to ask this question but i still am hearing a real problem with h-2-a as far as legal services in suing our veg trabble growers and costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars on frivolous lawsuits. that needs to be addressed. we need to come up with a solution. i yield back the remainder of my time. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes himself for five minutes. mr. conaway: mr. secretary earlier when you were answering to trent kelly's question about the c.i.o.s you indicated there were stovepipe c.i.o.'s, did i understand you hired a chief c.i.o. now to oversee those agencies? secretary vilsack: there's

always been a chief c.i.o. but that chief c.i.o. wasn't empowered to have sufficient oversight and responsibility in my view to basically be able to know and to be able to channel all other c.i.o.s from each mission area in the proper direction. >> do they have to report to that one individual? secretary vilsack: yes. there is a process based on the directive i signed some time ago that says, look, you are all in this together here. you're not going to be operating separate and distinctly from each other. >> we had the exact same problem in the department of homeland security. it's a real mess if you don't empower one individual to have direct authority over the individuals. because they want to do their own thing. secretary vilsack: they do. that creates problems. >> glad to hear it. many people, including myself, believe that the e.p.a.'s waters of the united states rule is expanding the e.p.a.'s jurisdiction beyond what they are statutorily authorized. if the e.p.a. determines that there is a jurisdictional water

in a producer's field but the natural resources conservation service has not identified it as a wetland, how will that work? how do you reconcile that? secretary vilsack: the correct answer is i don't know and the hope would be that that doesn't occur. i think there's still an awful lot of work yet to be done in terms of this issue. i don't think we have resolved t i think there's going to be a lot of litigation and concern about this. my focus and frankly what i told our people we are in the business of trying to help farmers do whatever they have to do to comply with whatever the law or regulation might be. so that's why we are trying to figure out ways in which we can be better at what we do at nrcs. more efficient, effective, timely, use resources more effectively. that's why we are exsited about the r.c.c. program.

it's a way of dealing with the large water scale projects that could make a big difference in terms of water quality. that's our focus. >> let me ask you the alternative to that. what if usda identifies wetlands that the corps and e.p.a. have not identified? what will that mean for the farmers and ranchers? will these wetland be clean water act wetland? secretary vilsack: i don't know the answer to that question, mr. chairman. i would be happy to have our team try to respond to both those questions. those are technical questions and i don't know the answer. mr. rogers: i fear they are going toned up in litigation and that's unfair to our farmers and ranchers. secretary vilsack: that's a safe bet today. mr. rogers: thank you very much. that's all i have. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady whose name i can't see from here. miss cufter -- miss cusser. miss custert -- ms. kuster: thank you very

much. your colleague was at the veterans' affairs committee and we had a very informative hearing there. i wanted to say first off thank you very much. i'm very excited in new hampshire that we have growth in farming. i think one of the few states, 5% increase in new farmers. typically small, a lot of emphasis on farm to table and buying local. farmers markets really taking off in our region. i wanted to talk to you about the program beginning farmers and ranchers. and inspector general report issued in may of 2015 about the generation of farmers that are retiring from the industry and how we can encourage -- i don't want to say young people, because sometimes it's young people. sometimes it's not so young people.

it may be people seeking a secretary career. the quote was despite considerable resources and effort provided by usda agency, the department lacks sufficient performance goals, direction, coordination, and monitoring to ensure success that funds were being used effectively by farmers. i just wanted to see if you could comment on that. how can we implement effective performance goals to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being well spent in this regard? secretary vilsack: i have asked the deputy secretary to lead this effort. and she is traveling around the country visiting with a number of organizations and groups of folks who are interested in getting into farming or folks who are encouraging folks to get into farming. one of the issues that has cropped up we have asked specifically the beginning farmer advisory group to look at is this issue of land tenure. candidly you mentioned the fact that there are going to be a

loft people retiring and leaving the farming business. that's probably true. the question is what happens to the land? and the question then is, whoever owns that land, what is their ultimate goal here? or their relatives' ultimate goal? is it to maximize return or create opportunity for the next generation or is it a combination of both? and frankly i have asked the task force to come with recommendations on this issue of land tenure. what can we do, should we do, ought we do at usda with reference to our programs to ensure there is that proper balance so that it's not a focus simply on bottom line, but also a focus on next generation. number one. number two, you-all ask us to create a military liaison position which we have done with a marine who works at f.s.a. he's actively pursuing efforts to try to get into military bases with information about farming opportunities. and basically providing

opportunities for us to actually go on base to talk to folks who may be retiring or thinking about retiring about the opportunities that exist in farming. i think it's also helpful the recent effort by the farmer rancher alliance which is predominantly production agriculture to create a more positive image about farming and a more supportive image. to push back a little bit on some of the folks who are constantly critical of farmers. i have seen recently some very very positive good ads. i saw one yesterday from the corn growers that was fabulous about the opportunities in farming. i think the more we focus on the poisive aspect of farming, the more we focus on all kinds of diversity within farming and diversity of size of operations methods of production, crops being produced, and people the better it's going to be in terms of our ability to track more young people, younger people, or more folks into this business.

we are seeing an uptick in beginning farmers. we still have more to do. ms. kuster: i appreciate you bringing up the military. i encourage you as well with veterans. i know our veterans administration in white river junction vermont, on the border with new hampshire has a program for veterans in farming because of the connection to working with their hands working outdoors. there's good mental health aspects to farming that are very conducive to a better transition back into civilian life. i also wanted to commend your deputy for coming to new hampshire to have an event with women farmers. i appreciate that. i think it's something that we need to look into. and i look forward to working with you on all these programs to bring in different

constituencies to farming. secretary vilsack: if i can, mr. chairman. the issue of veterans is one that i care very deeply about. it's obviously personal to me because of a nephew who served in afghanistan who is now potentially hopefully thinking about a career after he graduates from college in the forest service. these folks are good problem solvers. one of the challenges that we have seen at usda, i have asked secretary mcdonnell about this, is we are trying to get more veterans to work at usda, we are trying to get more veterans to work in federal government generally. we have had some success. we have seen increased numbers. but the attrition rate, folks coming and then leaving, is disproportionately high. so we are asking our team to look at this. constituencies to farming. secretary vilsack: if i why is that? what aren't we doing, what do we need to do to make sure these folks are acomplicated. the forest service is nice because it's got a military mindset. but the other mission areas i think we need to continue to do more work so that we make it a welcoming place for veterans. that should increase more people getting into the business of farming.

ms. kuster: thank you. mr. rogers: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. king for five minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, you mentioned vaccine that's is00 -- 100% effective for a.i. i'm wondering if that might be in reference to a company out of iowa? secretary vilsack: it's not. it's a different company. it's actually work--the seed strain has been done by our researchers in concert w -- with another company. there is nothing to prevent harris vaccine from participating in this once we get it figured out. mr. king: i'm hopeful there will be an open competition to that and we can bring all the technology to the table. i appreciate your words on that. secretary vilsack: the key is for whatever entity gets to it first to provide the licensing arrangements. we will facilitate that. no one company this is my belief, i don't know if this is right or not, no one company will be able to produce as much as we need as quickly as we

need it. hopefully we'll be able to get a lot of folks working collaboratively together. we stockpile enough so if this thing does hit and hits us hard we are in a position to respond quickly. mr. king: there is much to be said about vaccine. also you referenced frost from us in discussion with mr. yoho. i happen to have gone and watched a demonstration project in right before the fourth of july that was taking out by that demonstration more than 99% of the soluble phosphorous that was suspended that was at the discharge of the plant. i want to bring that to your attention there is new technology that's emerging here that looks like it could effectively solve the phosphorous problem we have.

so this opportunity, i mentioned that, i don't know if that was something were you aware of. secretary vilsack: what i was referring to as the use of phosphorous at the base of a tree hit by the citrus greening and somehow it's an impact on minimizing the consequences of citrus greening. mr. king: i'll get that information to you and ask you to pass that along to your people. then another piece of this there's so much to be said about bird flu. i want to be sure the committee is aware and public's aware of how big this is. i'll say i know of no livestock disease, problem, that has met ever in the history of this country that's met the magnitude of this avian influenza we have. i'm open to any -- in rebuttal to that. we are looking at nationwide 48 million birds affected by this all dead. 75% of the layers in the country, iowa, 92% of the layers in iowa in the fourth congressional district, problem that's my district. and so this is devastating to a very localized region in the country. it began inal region in minnesota as far as the midwestern component of this is

concerned. i know that usda deployed people up there quickly. by iowa, my numbers from 47 locations are positive before it spilled over into two, and then from there it hit the large laying operation. that's when i think it became such a large epidemic that it was for a time out of control. i wanted to speak with you about the things that need to be prepared for another event that may happen. the focus on the east coast i'm glad to see that here. i think it's very appropriate they do that. but the resources that you have had i think you testified here that they are at least adequate to this moment. and i'm happy to be supportive if you need more resources. i would want to bring to your attention some of the things like the emergency response component of this. the level of urgency that i thought i should have seen. more in line with a flood or

natural disaster or hurricane perhaps tornadoes tornado's too small a magnitude. i thought the urgency should have been hire. the chain of command so we know what that order of command is and who we can communicate with. i ask you to take a look at that. look at the corps of engineers' approach how they bring a lot of resources to play under a military style chain of command so there can be a quicker response. you mentioned a disposal. that is a big problem. it was the biggest problem from the beginning. i'm very troubled by what we had to do. and some of that is composting birds outside. and wind rows mixed with composing material, to cover them with sawdust but still exposed to birds that can carry that disease elsewhere. the study that is at this point not completely complete is going to be, i think, a key how we bring the biosecurity to bear which might well be the key whether we can set up something maybe under r.m.a.

for an income interruption type of insurance for our producers. not only the turkey people especially the lay layers. there are a loft combronets of this i would like to weigh in on. i would say is it your counsel i should write a series of opeds and have that talk? is there a bert method that we can convey some of these things so that the next disaster f. it hits, pray it doesn't, these things that i have been in a position to-to-see can be implemented for solutions? secretary vilsack: i think the first step in the process congressman, would be for any ideas and thoughts you have to be willing to share them at the meeting that's going to take place next week in iowa which is designed to get people to discuss this openly. and fully. number one. number two i agree with you in terms of the instant command process. that's why we are setting up a different system. i agree with you that disposal is an issue. as you know it's not just dictated by the federal folks.

state folks are involved, and local folks are involved, and landfill people. that's why i instructed our team to think about where this could potentially happen in states that haven't been hit. where are the landfills? can we have conversations now to acquaint them with what this is all about. why it's not a risk for them to participate in disposal? disposal issues no question that's an issue. that's why we are looking at ways to do a better job of that. the study will be supplemented i think by next week. we may learn additional steps in terms of biosecurity. and long-term the issue of an insurance product or disaster program certainly makes sense. there is a loft work that's been done, going to be done. if you have input more than happy to receive it beginning next week. mr. king: thank you, mr. secretary. mr. rogers: mr. lamalfa, for five minutes. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you secretary vilsack, and for being so available to this committee and faithfully

coming as often as you do. it's appreciated. i just wanted to follow up on previous we have talked in the past about california's drought situation, emergency relief funding that was made available which was announced february of 2014. intended for emergency assistance in the drought period. actually it was in response to 2013 droughts. so we still have additional years of -- on top of that. we just need more help with the state f.s.a. offices on getting that out there because we have had only a handful that have been issued of drought relief funds that have been processed. we have -- i have the email from one of the state staff here too, that shows there is still outstanding 180 applications of an initial $5.4

million that was approved in an account. there's at least $3.9 million still remaining in that same reserve that needs to be disbursed. in response to the 2013. we are here in 2015 and for those that really need that, it must be really having a lot of answers, having to provide their bankers, etc. can you help us with whatever it's going to take to expedite at least in 2015 like asap to those additional -- those 180 applicants get those out and the remainder of those funds get those disbursed, please. secretary vilsack: i appreciate you bringing this to our atefpks as a result of your efforts we are prioritizing. i'm not going to be able to pronounce this because of your concerns. i would say that part of the challenge that we have is it's

not just our office. we work and have to work through the state of california's rules and regulations. there is a cultural resource review. there is an historic preservation officer and tribal preservation officer involved in reviewing these projects. mr. lamalfa: even for something as simple as disbursement of funds? secretary vilsack: yes. the producer has to basically submit their receipts and is essentially reimbursed for 75% of the work. we will do what we can. we understand how important this is. that's why we allocated additional resources in 2014. that's why we just recently announced additional resources in 2015. we understand it's a profpblet mr. lamalfa: could we work with you in finding ways where you run into roadblocks to remove those hurdles, i think there should be waiver for things that don't have an effect on --

this should not have a cultural effect or other things. there shouldn't be a reason to have this held up. i'm not pointing at you. the other end of the process. if we can help us find that and get to the specifics maybe we can get a waiver process for something that doesn't have any effective -- negative effect and doesn't need a review s that reasonable? just a follow-up on one of my colleagues' previous questions. talk about the waters of the united states ruling on have a cultural effect or other things. there shouldn't be a reason to have this held up. i'm not pointing at you. the other end of the process. if we e.p.a. let's go to the other side of that. if the usda were to identify a wetland that the corps or e.p.a. or others had not necessarily identified, what would that mean for farmers and ranchers if usda has classified it? would that make those wetlands, if it was identified as usda, a clean water act wetland, too? secretary vilsack: i apologize. i don't have the information and knowledge to be able to answer your question accurately or adequately. i have obviously been asked

this question by you and variations of it by other members of the committee. i'm certainly happen to go back and ask our team to previous me on this and get me up to speed on precisely how best answer. mr. lamalfa: waters of the united states is a bit of a moving target i understand. maybe if we can anticipate some of these things -- go ahead, sir. secretary vilsack: i agree with you it's a moving target. it may very well take a political process and judge at some point in time to figure it out. i apologize i'm not able to answer your quefment mr. lamalfa: thank you, sir. mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. rogers: the gentleman yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary. my questions are pretty short because first off let me apologize for being not present at the start. it was between you and secretary of the v.a. who got first. i'm sorry. i'm here now. the question thafe, it's

because my district right now sometimes you hear around this nation where people are lack of water, lack of water, lack of water. we'd like to send some to them. i'm just kind of wondering. i know our governor from it state of illinois is applying for a declaration, disaster declaration. how are you prepared and how does that process work our team to for our farms that are just been devastated through the flooding we are experiencing right through the corn belt? secretary vilsack: if the governor is asking for secretarial designation, it comes through our process and we try to respond to it as quickly as we can because we know that for our farms that are just been devastated through the flooding we are experiencing right then gives us the capacity to make emergency loans more readily available. those kinds of things. i would be happy to look at t i don't know if we received it

yet. if we do, it's been my instruction to our team to try to turn these things around as quickly as possible. we did streamline the process for drought declarations. making it more automatic. i'll be happy to look again. >> my staff has been working with them. it's our hope we can move fairly quickly. the situation. mr. b.o.s.: also, the other -- mr. boss: the other question i have, i know -- mr. bost: i know thaur' talking about implementing the new information technology and that type capacity to of programs out there, is any of that -- would any of that reduce or end or shut down niff our service centers? does it centralize it? do we still have our service centers in the field? secretary vilsack: well, it should reduce the amount of busy work and paperwork and already actually doing that in

terms of reducing the a staff time. in the past, what would happen is if you came into an f.s.a. office and needed information, literally paper records would have to be pulled. that takes time. now that's no longer the situation. you can call it up on the screen pretty quickly. over a longer period of time as we continue this, you'll eventually, if you have access to broadband and so forth, you'll eventually be able to access terms of reducing the a staff time. in the past, what would happen is if you came into an f.s.a. office and needed information, ale lot of this information, your conservation stuff is already ack vestible at home. so clearly that's going to reduce the amount of time that's been spent in the past on those kind of issues. now, what we have attempted to do is try to plan for that by creating a process in which f.s.a. offices will become more than what they have been in the past. without minimizing what they do, which is important in terms of the relationship with farmers. we'd like to see them also be provider of information about other usda programs that might assist the farmer that may not be an nrcs program or may not be a farm loan program, but they could be a marketing program. so we are in the process of creating pilots around the country to see whether or not f.s.a. offices would be amenable to this.

whether they could learn enough about our rural development programs to be able to say to a farmer coming in hey, have you ever thought about this value added opportunity? ever thought about this cooperative opportunity? as a way of creating information, additional responsibilities additional information, that will allow them -- >> you can continue to watch this hearing with secretary vilsack at c-span.org. we are leaving. the house is gaveling in momentarily as they begin work on a bill dealing with coal ash disposal. and preliminary date debate on labeling standards for genetically modified foods. live coverage here on c-span. chaplain conroy: let us pray. thank you, o lord our god for giving us another day. you are the prove dent guide of our nation's history and we ask you to guide protect and strengthen the united states house of representatives during this first session of the 114th congress. help these duly elected

representatives of the people be about the work of the people. make this democratic republic strong that it may be your fit instrument to renight the natural and human resources of this -- to unite the natural and human resources of this nation, that your people may live ordered lives under the law and in harmony with others and so be a beacon of hope for the world. in you and from you we draw our inspiration and creativity. in you and from you, o lord, we find lasting peace and universal justice. may all that is done within the people's house this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1 i demand a vote on agreeing to the

speaker's approval. journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. the gentleman from california. >> mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: purr suent to clause 8 of rule 20 -- pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady from california ms. chu. chu i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, -- ms. chu: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute.

revise and extend. the speaker: without objection. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, president obama is at it again. he's now seeking to deny millions of law-abidinging americans their second amendment right to bare arms by going through -- bear arms by going through social security. why is that? because he couldn't get gun control through the congress, the american people wouldn't stand for it. mr. speaker, old age or disability does not make someone a threat to society. these folks should be able to defend themselves just like everyone else. as chairman of the social security subcommittee and staunch defender of the second amendment, i will do everything in my power to stop this gun grab. yesterday i ordered the commissioner of social security to stand down and abandon any such plan.

mark my words americans' second amendment rights must and will be protected. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? gentlewoman from california, my apologies. >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. chu: mr. speaker, i am here to ring the alarm bell on the pending expiration of a very important program next week. it is the small business administration's flagship 7-a loan program which provides long-term loans to small businesses that are unable to secure financing through conventional channels. about 80% of small business owners who apply for nons.b.a. loans get rejected. it is s.b.a.'s 7-a program that gets them the money they need to succeed. in my district alone, more than $2 billion in capital have been provided to small businesses

since 1990. not only does 7-a lending directly support american jobs, it also operates at zero cost to taxpayers. we cannot let the successful program lapse. at the current rate of lending, this program could be forced to shut down as soon as next week. i urge the speaker to act on this critical issue before the august recess and make sure that our small businesses thrive. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to recognize the upcoming sturgis motorcycle rally which will be celebrating its 75th anniversary this year. each august, freedom loving bikers racers, and motorcycle enthusiasts gather in sturgis, south dakota, to celebrate this annual event. from the black hills motorcycle rally in 1938 sturgis has

expanded from a single race to a week-long event attended by hundreds of thousands of people from across the u.s. and the global. mr. walberg: this year organizers are anticipating well over a million people will descend upon the small town of 6,600. as co-chair of the congressional motorcycle caucus, i'm going to offer my best wishes to the attendees of this year's events. we hope for good weather, safety, and another successful week celebrating motorcycles and the freedom to ride. i yield babbling. -- back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: i rise to honor the life and legacy of ann miller, the radio voice of the buffle bills who passed away last friday at the age of 87. for decades thousands of bills fans welcomed van into their homes. every sunday they muted their television so they could watch the game with van giving play-by-play on the radio.

he emit mized what it means to a buffalo bills fan because he was one of us. he joined the bills for the team's inaugural season in 1960 and his voice became synonymous with some of the most exciting moments in buffalo sports history. his play-by-play of four consecutive super bowl appearances exhilarating call of the comeback game, and word fandimonium will observingo every year. he earned a place in the wall of fame and first local prafter to be honored with pete row sell television radio award from the profootball hall of fame in 20. i ask my colleagues to join me in remembering van mill letter's place in sports his -- miller's place in sports history and the joy he brought to so many western new yorkers. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one

minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the president has announced he's reached a nuclear deal with iran. some of my texas constituents have contacted me because they are worried about this dangerous and irresponsible deal. thomas davis of houston wrote we must not finance terrorism or in any way support iran's gaining of nuclear weapons. thomas is rightfully concerned. since iran will soon receive billions of dollars they could continue to sponsor their terrorist groups worldwide. also, the deal legitimatizing iran's nuclear weapon program development in 10 years. thomas continues. i also urge you to disregard the u.n.'s premature acceptance as they do not accept something for us or authorize spending our money. if their action does give iran funds from an account we supplement then defund the account. wise words from citizen thomas davis. given the u.n. the first say on the nuclear deal and not congress was misguided. the u.n. vote of approval will not intimidate me into voting for this deal.

this deal will make the world less safe, less free, and make iran a world nuclear weapon power. isn't that lovely. that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? the gentlewoman. >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. schakowsky: on july 14, the older americans act turned 50 years old. my constituent, patricia from chicago, is one of millions who rely on the older americans act. here's what she wrote to me. i suffer from three chronic illnesses patricia said. meals on wheels allows me to have nutritious meals despite a difficult medicine regime. while not as active as i used to be, in allows me dignity in these difficult days. it allows me to volunteer both through my church and the park district and give back to the community the gifts and

knowledge accumulated through my lifetime. i teach crochet in the park district to youngsters as well as tutor science and math in my church. enriching the lives of many. it's what i can do. and these programs help me do it. let's celebrate the older americans act by passing a strong re-authorization bill for people, millions of people like patricia. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. we repeatedly hear supporters of this weak and dangerous iran nuclear deal throw out this false dichotomy. it is either this deal or war. the reality of the situation is this. if congress does not reject this naive iran nuclear deal then we won't be faced with the

deal or war we will be faced with this deal and war. why do i say this? other countries in the region are going to want what we had conceded to iran, especially because we inexplicably agreed to a lifting of the arms embargo and a lifting of the sanctions against the regime's ballistic missile program. so what conceded have we guaranteed with this unverifiable deal? there's a conventional and nuclear arms race already set in motion in the region and iran will be nuclear in just about a decade's time. the only rational decision mr. speaker, is to vote against this deal if we truly want to avoid war. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gallego: mr. speaker, what

happened in san francisco was a horrible tragedy and my thoughts and prayers go out to katherine's family. as the authorities in san francisco seek justice for kate we should not, however allow demagogues like donald trump demonize entire communities because of the act of a single person. it is disappointing and alarming that house republican leadership is following donald trump's lead on immigration. the bill before our house this week would allow -- would withhold funds that are meant to enhance public safety, support community policing, and assist crime victims, effectively putting our communities at higher risk. mr. speaker this is nothing but an effort to cover for the house republicans' leadership's failure to bring a comprehensive immigration reform bill to the floor that would actually fix our broken immigration system. but like donald trump, the house republican leadership seemingly can't help themselves when it comes to painting millions of law-abiding and hardworking immigrants as nothing but criminals. mr. speaker, the safety of our community should not be a

political pawn. what the house leadership is doing is irresponsible. local law enforcement knows how to keep communities safe. let them do their jobs. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. emmer: mr. speaker, we continue to see issues with the president's health care law, including the most recent g.a.o. investigation that has revealed that there are major praud problems with the enrollment website. the nonpartisan watchdog discovered that health care.gov is unable to detect and prevent plate brandt fraud. mr. paulsen: this red flag is yet another example of how the health care law is not achieving the goals that it's claimed. premiums continue to rise, medical innovation has been stifled, and patients have less choice when it comes to their own health care decisions.

healthcare.gov was to have a flag is yet another example working verification system to ensure nobody could cheat the system. it's clear from this investigation there is very little fraud protection in place. mr. speaker, whether it's through incompetence or apathy, it's unacceptable that hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being wasted because administrators aren't implementing fraud potential measures. status quote must change. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. sanchez: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: mr. speaker, i rise today in staunch opposition to h.r. 3009, the enforce the law for sanctuary cities act or perhaps better titleding the donald trump act. this is nothing more than an underhanded ploy to criminalize the immigrant from this investigation community who research shows are less likely to commit serious crimes than native born persons. to demonize an entire community based on the actions of a few does not inform wise policy. local police are best equipped to make decisions of how best to serve their communities.

let them make those decisions. withholding federal funds from jurisdictions who have adopted local trust policies will not make our communities safer or fix our broken immigration system. it will only make it more difficult for local police to provide public safety to their communities. unfortunately, this doesn't come as a surprise. this is the same republican-led congress that nearly shut down the department of homeland security, compromising the safety of our community. . . i have said we need to focus on passing comprehensive immigration reform yet time and time again republicans have shown the only aspect of immigration reform they are interested in is deportation. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker i rise today to remember the life of city of brooksfield's vice mayor and a good friend of mine joe johnsonton the iii.

he was straightforward and as good as they come. mr. nugent: the loss of his life has impacted the entire community and for obvious reasons. he was a family man. he dedicated his life to his wife their three daughters, his two brothers and seven grandchildren in the same place where his parents raised him. he attended our local schools, graduated from the university of florida, moved back to be a par legal in a firm which his father established and helped build. more often than not joe's devotion was indicative of his love of the greater community. 20 years ago joe ran successfully for a seat on the brooksfield city council and probably served in that seat until his untimely death just this month. he was compassionate and caring about those around him, whether he knew you or not. joe was known for being a steady hand on the council and was never backing down, even when the odds were against him. and people respected that. he became a well-known -- became well known in our small

town but not solely because of his politics or career. in fact it was mostly what he did outside of it. he was an outdoorsman, a traveler, a sailor, an adventurer and a great member of the community. he understood what true appreciation of life comes from the experiences you have and the memories you make and he embraced it with all his will. pains me that after 10 years joe lost a battle with cancer. so i stand here today to remember a leader i valued and celebrate his great life and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker only one of the top 10 exporting countries in the world does not

have an export-import agency that helps them finance new export deals. just one. and that country is the united states of america. that's because this congress has failed to do what every congress since f.d.r. has done, and that is re-authorize the export-import bank. today an american exporter is forced to compete against china, south korea, germany, france, italy, japan, with one hand tied behind its back. their businesses get the support, their citizens get the jobs and americans are hung out to dry by their own government. in my congressional district alone, 66 small businesses in the past eight years have benefited from export-import financing of their exports. they've exported everything from peanut butter to industrial equipment. let's give congress a chance to

save american jobs. let's have an up or down vote on the export-import bank. if it came to a vote on this floor, it would surely pass. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. stewart: mr. speaker today i rise to celebrate the 150th birthday. the county was formed in january 1865, after a year of hard work by entrepreneurial mormon pioneers. press reported that in only one year the settlers had built more than four miles calf nal more than 10 miles of roads all to access timber and farmlands and other things they would need as they build this community. one reporter noted the spirit of industry and perseverance in the people as manifest. their actions are kind and benevolent toward one another and they will make this a great place for future generations. the past 150 years have proven these words to be true.

today the county's home to many hardworking residents. people who work in a unique lie beautiful rural setting. the county enjoys a world famous a.t.v. trail, boating, fishing, hunting and horseback riding. i'm proud to represent the county. they represent some of the best people that our nation has to offer. and i wish them success as they celebrate their 150th anniversary. with that mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i rise today to mark the approaching 50th anniversary of the voting rights act and talk about the importance of restoring the voting rights act as well. for decades the voting rights act has stood as the guardian for all americans to exercise their right to vote.

but two years ago the supreme court reversed course on expanding voting rights when it ruled that section 4 of the voting rights act was unconstitutional. just hours after that ruling, my home state of texas immediately began enforcing discriminatory laws against minority citizens from voting. i sued the state to fight these unconstitutional efforts in v.c. versus -- veasey versus perry, which the court agreed that rick perry signed an intentionally discriminatory texas voter photo. i d. law. the state legislature passed the most agredgeous voter i.d. law in the entire -- egregious voter i.d. law in the entire country. as we await the fifth circuit appeals, house democrats will continue to fight against obstacles -- against voter -- for voting participation and talk about the importance of restoring the voting rights act. as you can tell by what's going on in texas, it needs to be done now. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield

back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. guinta: mr. speaker, i stand before you today with a heavy heart. recently videos have been released showing senior employees at planned parenthood discussing a horrific topic. the proper way to preserve the heart liver and lungs of a child during an abortion in order to harvest those organs for sale. consider the illogical nature of the conclusion that an infant is not a life. that an infant is not worthy of preservation, but the organs which give it life are worthy enough to be kept and sold. pro-life or not, this should strike at the conscience of every human being. and in a larger sense, it should strike at the conscience of a nation. that this practice is permitted and allowed. following the release of these videos, house leadership called for an investigation into planned parenthood, which i commend and fully support.

i am often asked back home if i consider myself pro-life and if so why. my answer to them is simple. i will never forget hearing my daughter's heart beat for the first time. that heart beat had a name. and its name was kolbe. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: mr. speaker americans are increasingly skeptical about the national news they receive. a new study released this month conducted by the first amendment center and "u.s.a. today" found that only 24% of americans believe the media try to report the news without bias. this is a record low since the question was first asked a decade ago. 70% of respondents believe that news reports are intentionally biased. this represents a 15% increase

just since last year. millennials are even more suspicious about the news. only 7% of americans 18 to 21 years old said that the media report news objectively. media bias is both real and unfortunate. americans will continue to reject the bias of the national liberal media until the media stops telling them what to think. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, walt wittman explained the story of man kind when he said that the powerful play goes on and you will contribute a verse. i rise today to recognize the many verses contributed by an extraordinary lady, kathy arts. kathy's managed my district office for nearly seven years and is retiring to contribute

still more verses to her family her friends, colleagues community and church. mr. mcclintock: whether as a small business owner for the past 28 years a volunteer coordinator for local county fairs and community festivals, or a charity fundraiser kathy is the paragon of a go-to person. her most conspicuous virtues are general concern for helping others and that has been a god-send to my office and to the people of the fourth congressional district of california. in this she is irreplaceable. i think of a meaningful life, i think of kathy arts and rise to thank her for her public service. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of protecting the lives of unborn and condemn the barbaric

practices of planned parenthood as described by the foundation's medical directors in recently released video footage. the heartless and blatant disregard for the sanctity of life reveals the systemic problems with this organization . specifically their culture of death. mr. speaker let's think about this. how can life-giving organs be considered more valuable than the very life of the baby from which they are taking those organs? hopefully these sobering clips will embolden the senate to move on finishing the fight to protect the unborn that are medically documented to feel pain at 20 weeks and pass h.r. 36, the pain-capable unborn protection act. mr. stutzman: in closing, mr. speaker as the veil is pulled back and the practices of planned parenthood are further exposed, i remain steadfast in preventing taxpayer dollars from funding this organization. we must protect the innocent lives of the unborn in any way

that we can. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition -- seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize the contributions of hal coxen to our community in illinois. he's an constitution in lake county and there are few local leaders or organizations who have not benefited from hal's leadership, generosity and friendship. mr. dold: on july 28 hal is retiring from consumers credit union where he and his team led efforts to open the door for credit to thousands of people who otherwise would never have thought it possible. hal recognized that consumers could do more for its customers than provide financial services and that they could also play a role in helping improve people's lives in other ways. it was not uncommon to find hal and his team holding workshops or helping in the library, working to volunteer with

organizations and helping them raise much-needed resources for very very worthy causes. mr. speaker, i'm honored to call hal my friend. he will surely be missed but there is no doubt that he will continue to help people in our community even in retirement. thank you, hal. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek reck recognition? -- recognition? >> by direction of committee on rules, i call up house resolution 369 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 49. house resolution 369. resolved, that at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 1599 to amend the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act with respect to food produced from, containing, or consisting

of a bioengineered organism, the labeling of natural foods and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on agriculture now printed in the bill, 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 114-24 modified by the amendment printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of

a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. . any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. sec. 2. at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule xviii, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 1734 to amend subtitle d of the solid waste disposal act to encourage recovery and beneficial use of coal combustion residuals and establish requirements for the proper management and disposal of coal combustion residuals that are protective of human health and the environment. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. after general debate the bill

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part c of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one hoyer. mr. byrne: mr. speaker, during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i now yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, penning which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. byrne:00 mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. byrne: house resolution 369 provides a structured rule for consideration of h.r. 1734, the improving coal combustion residuals regulation asket 2015 and -- act of 2015, and h.r. 1599, the safe and accurate food labeling act of 2015. mr. speaker, when i'm back in southwest alabama for district travel, i spend a lot of time

visiting with small business owners and holding town hall meetings. almost every event i hold someone mentions how regulations are having a negative impact on them, their business, and their employees. these regulations cover everything from energy to health care to tax policy. and too many of my constituents are drowning in red tape. regulations are and they are forced to spend too much money and time complying with burdensome regulations. now i get it. a lot of people in washington think that they know best. so these bureaucrats get in the room and they start scheming on how they can solve all these problems. and their answer is almost always that we need more rules and regular laces -- regulations. mr. speaker, this is entirely the wrong approach. this kind of topdown washington knows best strategy is not working. and it's putting a real burden on my constituents in alabama and people all over the country. that's why this rule allows for

the consideration of two bills that are focused on simply filing the regulatory process in two very important areas -- energy and agriculture. being from alabama, i know a thing or two about these topics. anyone who has ever spent time in lower alabama during july or august knows just how hot it can get. so that means families down there have to spend a pretty penny on their power bills during these summer months. under the obama administration's e.p.a., regulations on the energy sector have skyrocketed. the cost there these regulations are most importantly passed on to the consumer in the form of higher power bills. and the compliance burdens associated with these regulations are making it harder and harder for utilities to deliver reliable power to their customers. that's why the current enforcement structure of e.p.a.'s rule on coal

combustion resideuals or c.c.r.s is so concerning. while most of us were pleased that the e.p.a. decided to regulate c.c.r. as a nonhazardous solid waste, we are left with civil suits in place of commonsense enforcement measures to make sure the industry is complying with e.p.a. standards. this creates uncertainty among industry and a patchwork of interpretations by various courts around the country. the e.p.a. rule also creates some unintended consequences when it comes to federal and state jurisdiction. that's why the emproving coal combustion residuals interpretations by regulation act empowers states and allows them to establish permit programs to meet or exceed regulatory requirements set forth in e.p.a.'s final rule. it only makes sense that each state with their unique topography and geographic conditions should be able to set the permitting requirements

most appropriate for their conditions in order to meet these e.p.a. standards. in fact, states already govern the disposal of solid and hazardous waste under the resource conservation and recovery act, or rcra, and have done so since 1976. it's important to point out these regulatory reforms do not change the minimum requirements under the e.p.a. rule. which are designed to protect human health and the environment. this legislation actually codifies these standards and sets them as the baseline for state permitting programs nationwide. mr. speaker, i expect that some of my friends on the other side are going to argue that this legislation in some way weakens standards. let me tell you what will result in weakened standards. allowing different federal judges from all across the country to decide how the law should be interpreted and how standards should be set despite the fact that these judges have no real background in

regulatory matters regarding these sorts of hazardous wastes at all. instead of that flawed system, let's allow states to create their own permitting system which must comply with the e.p.a. standard. by getting frivolous civil lawsuits out of the way estimates project that this legislation will protect around 316,000 jobs. so if my colleagues on the other side thinks this is a waste of time, then i want them to tell that to these 316,000 families. h.r. 1734 is a good bill. that makes some very sensible reforms that simplify the process for the safe management and disposal of coal ash while providing a realistic enforcement mechanism for existing environmental standards. the second bill covered by this rule, the safe and accurate food labeling act, deals with agriculture. now, agriculture is the top industry in my home state of

alabama with over 500,000 jobs. and i have heard from a number of farmers who support this bipartisan legislation. h.r. 1599 will provide much needed clarity and uniformity in the labeling of food products containing genetically engineered plants or ingredients. this commonsense legislation is supported by almost 500 associations and farmers from hawaii to maine. the current regulatory system is a patchwork of state and local regulations which create unnecessary costs among consumers and food manufacturers without really helping to increase consumer awareness. in fact, a study by cornell university found that food prices could rise for american families by as much as $500 a year if something isn't changed. this legislation would streamline the labeling process and create a national voluntary food labeling standard for

products derived from g.m.o.s. by doing so america's farmers and food manufacturers wouldn't be burdened with incost consistent and costly regular laces. this legislation isn't just good for producers and farmers. it creates a uniform system driven by consumer demand. under this bill, consumers will be able to easily identify products and make their own decisions about what products are best for them and their families. so, mr. speaker, these bills are both about reducing the regulatory burden and simply filing the regulatory process. from consumers to small business owners to rural electric cooperatives to family farmers, people shouldn't have to spend precious time and money figuring out how to comply with regulations. instead, here in congress we should be focused on getting

government out of the way and allowing the american people to actually do their job, and that's what both these bills do. this is a fair rule and i urge its support. the coal ash rule allows for six amendments, all but one of them democrat amendments. the food labeling rule allows for four amendments all of them democrat amendments including one amendment that's a complete substitute for the bill. so the rules committee has worked very hard to make a very fair amendment process. and i believe that's exactly what this bill has done. i do urge the support for this rule. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts virginia tech. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from alabama, mr. byrne, for the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i rise in very strong opposition

to this rule which provides for consideration of h.r. 1599, the so-called safe and accurate food labeling act. and h.r. 1734 the improving coal combustion residuals regulation act. this week we are back on the floor with our 24th grab bag rule. one rule that governs debate for two completely unrelated measures. today the republican majority has chosen to group together a bill that undermines an e.p.a. rule making designed to protect public health and our environment with a bill designed to make it harder for consumers to know whether or not their food has been produced with genetically engineered ingredients. utilizing this kind of rule for two completely separate bills leads to disjointed debate and limits the time that people have to be able to talk about these issues. but it is a deliberate attempt by the republican majority to suppress debate. they don't want to bring serious issues to the floor and they certainly don't want serious debate and i regret very much that this has become a pattern.

i also oppose this lule because -- rule because neither bill is an open rule. and a lot of members i'm sure have a lot of issues they want to raise on both these bills but they are not going to have that opportunity. and the rules committee denied a whole bunch of amendmentses on--amendments on the g.m.o. labeling bill last night in committee. so i would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for open debate and an open process and reject this. send a message to the republican leadership that enough is enough. mr. speaker, with regard to h.r. 1734, the so-called improving coal combustion residuals regulation act, this bill continues republicans' anti-science, anti-environment anti-public health fight. there's not a week that goes by we don't have a bill that seeks to try to undermine regulation or rule making that is designed

to help protect the people of this contry. but this bill -- country. but this bill undercuts ep he's new coal ash rule, putting many communities at risk of exposure. coal ash is highly toxic and needs to be properly disposed of. the devastating effects are well-known. this bill is just another republican bill attempting to undermine commonsense health and safety protection from toxic chemicals. the american people deserve much better. i'm glad the white house has issued a veto threat against the bill. i would ask unanimous consent to include the statement of administration policy in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: so, mr. speaker, i'm going to spend most of my time talking about the other bill which i also strongly oppose. the h.r. 1599, titled the safe

and accurate food labeling act of 2015. one of the most misnamed pieces of legislation i think we have considered this year. mr. speaker, i believe that the debate -- at the center of the debate about this bill is americans' fundamental right to know what's in the food they eat and how it's grown. i believe people ought to have the right, plain and simple. this isn't a debate about the science behind g.m.o.s, that's a separate debate, but whether you love g.m.o.s or hate them ought to know if the food you're feeding your family is made from them. . many of which have nothing to do with safety or nutrition. for example, the f.d.a. requires mandatory labeling of juice when it's from concentrate. food labels are a simple and reliable way to tell people what's in their food and how it's made. americans have told us loud and clear that they want to know

what's in their food. poll after poll indicates widespread support for labeling g.m.o.'s. a recent poll by the group found that 91% are in favor of labeling with 81% saying they strongly prefer g.m.o. labeling. support for labeling cuts across party identification, gender age, you name it. and three states, vermont maine and connecticut, have listened to their citizens and passed laws requiring the g.m.o. foods be labeled. dozens more are considering similar initiatives including my home state of massachusetts. i understand the concern with 50 different states passing 50 different state labeling laws. i get it. that's why i support mandatory g.m.o. labeling. we need a national standard that eliminates confusion and puts the american people in charge. but unfortunately the bill before us only adds to the confusion. it codifies the existing voluntary labeling system for

g.m.o. foods that hasn't worked and hasn't provided consumers the information that they want. it prements states from responding to consumer demand and requiring g.m.o. labeling and it invalidates state laws already in place. and it continues to allow foods that contain g.m.o.'s to be labeled as natural, despite the fact that 60% of americans believe that natural means g.m.o.-free. mr. speaker i have a stack of letters here from a variety of organizations opposed to h.r. 1599, the national farmers union representing family farmers and ranchers across the country, they oppose this bill. the consumers union, national black farmers and 125 c.e.o.'s and business leaders from massachusetts and across the country, including whole foods market co--c.e.o., chi poll -- chpoltle c.e.o. panera bread

c.e.o. american sustainable business council c.e.o. and co-founder , sweet green ink co-founder, chef and founder of the think food group kraft hospitality c.e.o., a well-known chef, and many, many many others. the supporters of h.r. 1599 oppose mandatory g.m.o. lablinging, claiming that -- labeling, claiming that g.m.o. labeling would increase food prices for consumers. this is just simply untrue. i want to read a section of a letter from the c.e.o. of ben and jerry's. that proves the point. and inquote, as an ice cream company that operates in more than 30 countries, many of which require mandatory g.m.o. labeling, we are not swayed by arguments that mandatory labeling will be expensive. the truth is we regularly make

changes, sometimes big, sometimes small, to our packaging. he continues, every year we make changes to between 25% and 50% of our packaging. over the last seven years, we've gone through three full line redesigns. in order, we have changed the packaging on every single pint in our product line as a matter of normal bills. i can tell you unequivocally that changing labels does not require us to raise the price of our products. lots of things impact the cost a consumer pays for a pint of ben and jerry's. label changes are not one of them. end quote. mr. speaker, it seems to me that adding a label to indicate that a product that contains g.m.o.'s ought to be pretty straightforward. so, to the supporters of h.r. 1599 i would simply ask, what are you afraid of? why is giving the american people more information about their food such a bad idea? perhaps supporters of keeping the american people in the dark

believe that if consumers know that g.m.o.'s are in their food, they won't buy them. i don't believe that tonight case. i myself consume g.m.o. foods. my family does and we will continue to do so. even if there's a label. but that's my choice. that's my choice. h.r. 1599 really is a washington-knows-best approach. this is the epitome of a washington-knows-best approach. it says, we don't care what people want, we don't care what people think, we politicians in washington, we know best. that's why people hate congress. that's why people are frustrated with congress. they don't think we listen. so let me suggest to my colleagues a radical idea. and brace yourselves because this is a really, really radical idea. give the american people what they want. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bryne: mr. speaker, i was listening to the gentleman's remarks and if he believes that by codifying the e.p.a. regulation, that this bill is

undermining e.p.a. i just don't follow that reasoning. that's what this bill does. it takes the e.p.a. regulation and it codifies it. it puts it into statutory law. and it sets it as a minimum and allows the state regulators that are already regulating solid hazardous waste to use that as a minimum and go above it. so far from undermining e.p.a.'s authority here, far from undermining the effort to get a clean environment for the people of america this enhances it, by putting it into law and allowing the states to go above it if that's what they want to do. what this bill really does that's new and different and different from what the e.p.a.'s trying to do is that it takes the enforcement of this away from different federal courts around the country and gives it to the state regulators that are already providing this regulation in other common areas already.

and had been since 1976. now, i am a lawyer and have practiced in federal courts. we have many fine federal district judges around the country. but they're not experts in this area. and if you bring a lawsuit in their court, they and their law clerks will work very hard to make sure that they get it as close to right as they can. but not having the experience and the expertise, we're going to get a lot of differences. we're going to get a patchwork. whereas if we go to the state regulates that are are doing it now, we're going to get something that makes sense within each of these individual states, give them their different geography and topography and other things we should consider. this bill, this bill does not undermine the law, it enhances the law. now, on the food labeling law. we had the discussion about this in the rules committee yesterday. i'm a consumer. i go to the store, my wife sends me to the store, says, get this, this, and this. and she does a lot of studying before i do that. but sometimes i have to read the labels. now, imagine that i go to a store where i live in alabama

and i'm an hour away from mississippi and an hour away from florida. and somebody's got to put a product on store shelves up and down the gulf coast and they have to comply with all three states' regulations on what's going to be -- what's got to be on the label. i'm going to pick up the can and there are going to be all these different disclosure requirements that they put on the same can. i have to figure out, what does all that mean? as opposed to having one common uniform disclosure and if somebody chooses not to disclose a producer of a given food product chooses not to disclose whether or not they're g.m.o., i'm going to assume they are. if i have a problem with g.m.o.'s, i'm not going to buy it. 5% of the consumers in america today won't buy g.m.o.'s. and they're pretty educated consumers. so what they're going to do, they're going to go in the store and say who has g.m.o. labeling and who doesn't, and if they don't, i'm not buying it. if the producers of those foods want to sell something to those customers they better start

taking advantage of what's happening through this common rule this uniform rule, across the country, to market themselves. so far from hurting the consumers, this helps the consumers. and that's what this bill has tried so very hard to do and i think they've done a good job with it. mr. speaker, i have here today the gentleman from washington, a member of the rules committee, and who is a farmer himself, and i yield to him five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. reichert: i'd like to thank my colleague from alabama, a member of the rules committee as well as join building mcgovern, who we share rules committee assignment with. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the rule that we're considering, as well as the underlying legislation. both bills. but i'd like to specifically speak to h.r. 1599, which is i believe, accurately labeled the safe and accurate food labeling act. i think also talk to the

positive impacts it will have on our nation's food supply. many of you may know that prior to coming to congress i was the director of the washington state department of agriculture. and shortly after my time at the wsda several group in my home state of washington proposed a ballot initiative. mr. newhouse: 5522, which would have required mandatory labeling of biotech food products. or those using ingredients that had biotech ingredients. also as we referred to as g.m.o.'s. i opposed i-522 for a couple of reasons but mainly because of the impact that we could see it would have on our farmers. and on our ranchers, our grocers. but more importantly, on our consumers. the families who are in the grocery stores making food decisions. who in the end would pay higher food prices as a result of this mandatory labeling law that was being considered. in our state we have the

washington research council and it conducted an independent study showing that mandatory food labeling of biotech ingredients would cost the average family at least, at a minimum, $450 a year in increased food costs. that's assuming that washington was the only jurisdiction to create such a law. if other states and other cities, other localities decided to such as seattle or new york or boston or san francisco or oregon, followed suit and passed their own laws, food producers would face an incredible unworkable patchwork of legal definitions what have a g.m.o. is and how to label it. can you only imagine a food producer having to print say 100 different labels for their product depending on where it was destined, where it was to be sold? and the liability they would face if, for instance a box of food labeled for phoenix ended

up in las vegas or los angeles. or salt lake city. many producers are considering stopping or have stopped selling products in the state of vermont. the most recent state to adopt mandatory labeling standards. because of this increased cost, the uncertainty and the liability that separate labels would -- by separate jurisdictions would create. so mr. speaker in my estimation and what the people of my state have said is what we need is a national voluntary label. much like organic. the label which gives consumers who want to purchase non-g.m.o. foods the freedom to do so. but while not imposing higher costs on producers or consumers. so, mr. speaker, critics of this bill, h.r. 1599, unfairly claim it will limit the ability of consumers to know what they're purchasing.

that simply is not the case. it's not true. if you go into a grocery store and want to purchase an organic product that's something that you're easily able to doment and that's exactly what this bill -- easily able to do. and that's exactly what this bill will do for g.m.o. foods it. will create a similar label -- foods it. will create same label -- foods. it will make a similar label. make no mistake, if buying non-g.m.o. is important to you as a consumer you'll have every ability to do so when you walk into a grocery store and make your purchase. and will you have the confidence of the united states department of agriculture's system of making sure that those labels are consistent from one state to the other. so you'll know what you're buying by what that label says. mr. speaker, the founders of our nation gave congress a tool in our constitution to regulate interstate commerce to prevent the types of legal patchworks and market distortions that we're beginning to see on this issue. so i strongly urge my colleagues to support the rule

support h.r. 1599, and protect our nation's access to safe, affordable food and thank you and i yield back to the gentleman from alabama. mr. bryne: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts voiced. mr. mcgovern: i appreciate the comments from my colleague from washington and colleagues from washington and alabama both serve on the rules committee with me and i respect them. but i don't think they were paying attention to my speech. i'm not arguing here for a patchwork of 50 different rules and regulations with regard to labeling. what i'm saying is that what my friends are proposing here which is voluntary labeling on non-g.m.o. products, should be replaced with mandatory g.m.o.-labeling across the country. that's what people want. and that's what this bill would deny. you are not only pree. -- preeveryoning states and telling states you -- preemting states and telling states you have have no role, what you're doing is setting a standard here where people will be kept in the dark.

so i want uniformity. but i want more information. and this idea that somehow labeling will increase food prices is just baseless. it's baseless. there are plenty of things that increase the prices that we pay at the grocery store. transportation costs and ingredients costs those all add to the cost. but g.m.o. labeling is not one of them. . in study after study web of seep -- we have seen that a simple g.m.o. disclaimer on food packaging will not increase prices. i just read to you the letter from the c.e.o. of ben and jerry's. you know, food companies change their labels all the time to make new claims and all food companies will soon have to change their label it's to make -- labels to make important changes to the nutrition fact panel. adding a few words on the back of a food package about genetic engineering will not impact the cost of making food. . so that's just not a real argument. that is

let's focus on what this bill really does. it basically keeps the american people in the dark about their food. with that i yield four minutes to the gentleman from oregon, the distinguished ranking member on the transportation and infrastructure committee, mr. defazio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i have listened to interest -- with interest to the speakers who preceded me, and the gentleman from massachusetts is absolutely right. the simple solution is to adopt a uniform national mandatory standard but that gave 88% of the american people polled that said we'd like the information on the label. it will not add costs anymore than printing red dye number 2 adds costs to the label. it will add no cost, and it will have a uniform national

standard. you won't have to worry about a proliferation of the states and you wouldn't have to contradict yourselves as republicans when every day you're down here screaming about states' rights and now when states do something you don't like, oh my god. states' rights, hu out of here. it's not -- ha, out of here. it's not just the labeling. so, yeah, there are three blue states that labeled and you don't care to preempt their laws. got that. but there are a lot of red states and purple states and blue states where the departments of agriculture have recognized the reality of g.m.o. and the potential pollution of conventional non-g.m.o. in organic crops. we had an incident in oregon where our wheat export stopped because g.m.o. modified wheat was found in the middle of a very large conventional farm. and until they could figure out how it got there and how much pollution there might be or cross-contamination of oregon's

huge wheat exports, they were all stopped because 64 countries around the world require this labeling. and somehow the u.s. conglomerates who make food and exports and process foods are able to label over there. i have a hershey's label, i'll show you tomorrow. got a beautiful flag on it. made in the u.s.a. contains g.m.o.'s. they can do it over there but not here because it will drive up the cost stratospherically. this would help them. if we adapt a national standard here, it will essentially the same as that required in the european union and 64 other countries. then they could ship their 50 to all 50 states, the territories and 64 countries around the world without having to make any changes. they might save some money then if labels are so expensive, but, no, we're going to have a

meaningless voluntary label, and even worse, we're going to create a new label. we're going to say that natural means g.m.o. so when you mate a flounder with a tomato plant which is what they do -- you know, they do it all the time, you know, that's natural. or when you take a salmon and you introduce an eel gene, they mate cross-breed all the time. no actually they don't. and the salmon grows twice as fast as normal salmon, then that's natural. you won't be able to say contains g.m.o.'s. you can say natural and natural means contains g.m.o.'s unless they want to voluntarily go on and say under the natural label i can have g.m.o.'s but say it's natural but contains g.m.o.'s. this has the prospect of causing tremendous chaos with a

new label for the american consumers. and back to the cross-contamination, again, this is not just, you know, a blue state issue. it's a red state issue. we have huge export markets and those 64 countries will not accept products that contain g.m.o.'s. so if you strip out state regulations -- they claim they fix the bill and don't stip out all the state department and agriculture regulations in some 35 states in the country -- many of them very red states -- to protect conventional and organic -- mr. mcgovern: i yield two minutes. mr. defazio: they claim to fix it but the language is still pretty -- you know, it's a little bit ambiguous and many people have -- who read it, experiod of times say, no, it looks -- experts say, no, it looks like we're trying to preempt them on separation and buffer zones and other things to protect conventional

farmers, organic farmers from the g.m.o.'s. so i had a very simple amendment that would just say, this does not preempt any state department of agriculture, which has adopted non-g.m.o. and organic crop for reasonable buffer zones and other sorts of provisions to prevent that cross-contamination. that's wiped out by this bill, in my opinion and the opinion of many other experts. and my amendment was not allowed. i'm thankful i have one amendment allowed which says, if you are labeling it in countries all around the world, you got to label it here. you know, that's not -- that's good but preferablely we would have uni-- preferblely we would have uniform labeling on everything in the 50 states and internationally by just requiring that you disclose that it contains g.m.o.'s. there was another amendment that will be offered tomorrow which will do away with this new natural standard. natural meaning mandatoryly

under federal law contains -- mandatorily under federal law contains g.m.o.'s. can contain g.m.o.'s. i don't know who slipped that little beauty in there. you want to talk about confusing consumers, organic natural, whoa what's the difference between natural and organic? organic, that sounds complicated. natural contains g.m.o.'s. so if the gentleman is really concerned about consumer confusion, you should support that amendment tomorrow to do awhich with this new disingenuous label. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, i wanted to assure my friend from massachusetts that -- mr. byrne: mr. speaker, i want to assure my friend from massachusetts that we are paying attention to him. he is a very knowledgeable gentleman and certainly makes interesting points. the problem is as i listen to

you talk, what you were saying, the gentleman says i think quite eloquently that we need a national standard. and right now we don't have a national standard. this bill will provide a national standard. so if we want a national standard, the status quo doesn't get you there. if you want a national standard, this bill gets you there. and that's why the bill has been offered. that's why we have this rule today, and that's why it's so important that we have this debate and the debate on the underlying rules so we can make sure we're all straight about what this bill does and does not do. this bill does something that is not being done right now. it provides a national standard for g.m.o. the gentleman, i think, would like for it to be mandatory. the bill calls for it to be volunteer. we can disagree -- the bill calls for it to be voluntary. this bill provides a national

standard. so i want to make sure the gentleman knows we listen to him. he makes very interesting points that are always educational to us, but we don't agree with his line of thought here and this bill, in our judgment, gets us to where i think he's trying to get us to go. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i simply say to the gentleman, i agree with him that this bill that will be considered tomorrow, that this rule makes in order, does create a national standard. the problem is that it's a national standard that keeps consumers in the dark about what's in their food. many of us would prefer a national standard that kind of shines some light on what is in people's food so that consumers know what they're buying. that's what consumers want. i'll go back to what i said in my opening statement. i know this is a radical idea in this particular congress but we ought to try something different. we ought to try giving the american people what they want, and on this issue they want to know what is in their food.

they want to know whether their foods contains g.m.o.'s. it's not a debate whether g.m.o.'s are good or bad. i eat g.m.o.'s. my family consumes g.m.o.'s. this is not what this is about. this is about information and transparency and giving consumers what they want. mr. speaker i'm going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question and if we do i will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up h.r. 3064, a comprehensive six-year surface transportation bill that is partially paid for by restricting u.s. companies from using so-called inversion to shirk their tax obligations. and i'm going to ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: to discuss this proposal, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on budget, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: i thank you mr. speaker. i'll thank my friend, mr. mcgovern and i do want to just take a break from the g.m.o.

debate to talk about a huge problem confronting our country and that is the infrastructure that is in disrepair from roads to bridges to transitways around this country. the american people know it, and they're backed up in what they can see in front of them by a report from the american society of civil engineers. they're the nonpartisan pros, they're the experts. they looked at the state of american infrastructure and given us a grade of d-plus. d-plus. nobody should be happy with a d-plus. the sad thing is that this congress should get an f grade for failing to respond to the bad grade with respect to our failing infrastructure. so in the face of this big problem, what did the house do? well, we're about to run out of money in eight days. we are about to see the end of the authorization in eight

days so the house of representatives instead of coming up with a long-term plan to address this issue, which is what we should do, came up with another kick the can down the road band-aid approach. they said we're going to provide an extension of the inadequate funding for just five more months just to december of this year. now, we're a great country, and i think everybody knows that if you're planning to make major investments in infrastructure, whether it's our roads or our bridges or transitways, you need a little more certainty and stability than that. certainly the private sector couldn't plan on five-month intervals, and we're asking these companies and these workers and these states to come up with long-term plans for our states and for our country on infrastructure, but we're only going to give them five months of certainty going forward. we think that's a bad idea.

guess what, senate republicans also think that's a bad idea. they came up with a six-year plan. now, what we're providing this house today is the opportunity on the very next vote to vote for the opportunity to vote on a robust six-year transportation infrastructure plan that is fully funded for the first two years. how do we pay for that two-year installment? we pay for it mr. speaker, by getting rid of this egregious tax loophole that many multinational corporations are using to escape their responsibilities to the american taxpayer. here's how it works. you have an american company their headquarters this -- headquarters are here, their people are here everything they have is here. then they go purchase a company, a small foreign company, and they move their mailing address overseas to

that small company and then that american company that's benefiting from the educational system we have here in the united states -- i ask for another minute? mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman another minute. mr. van hollen: so they purchase a little foreign company and then they move their mailing address over there and then they say to the american taxpayer, guess what, we don't have to pay any more taxes in the united states. we don't have to pay taxes for the infrastructure that we have that does support us. we don't have to pay for the education system that supports us. we want a free ride. now, we need to close down this tax break. more and more companies every day are taking advantage of it. and if you close that loophole, you generate $40 billion. $40 billion and you use that money that otherwise would go to the bottom line of these corporations that are trying to escape their responsibility to the american people and you

invest it in infrastructure right here at home. you help modernize our infrastructure, you put more people to work. we have introduced a piece of legislation mr. speaker to do that. the bill is 3064, h.r. 3064, and if we defeat the previous question we as a house will have an opportunity to vote on a six-year robust transportation plan that's funded for two years by closing this egregious tax loophole that's being exploited by companies. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: let's defeat the previous question and do what's right. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the points by the gentleman from maryland. i, too, would like to see a six-year highway bill. if you come to my district and see interstate 10 going through mobile at rush hour on a holiday weekend or in the summer weekends, you'll see cars backed up just about every direction, and we need another i-10 bridge across mobile river. we can't do that with a short-term highway bill, so i

strongly support what you're trying to accomplish. maybe not exactly how you're trying to get there but certainly support the concept there. here's the problem though, your idea, whatever it is, hasn't been vetted through committee. just going to put it up here in place of whatever we got and we really won't be -- and there really won't be an adequate opportunity for the members of the house to understand the details. also, i was listening to the gentleman from massachusetts in his initial statement talk about how inappropriate it is that we put two different topics or two different bills on two different topics under one rule and now we're going to interject transportation. well, if agriculture and energy are confusing, if we add transportation, it's going to be further confusing. so as so as much as i appreciate the idea that the gentleman from maryland has, perhaps not its specifics but the idea, this is not the appropriate place and this is

certainly not the appropriate rule for us to be discussing it. so, when the time comes to be appropriate, i will actually move the previous question. but i will also ask all of my colleagues to support the previous question when i do so. and i believe that is the appropriate way for this house to handle a matter of this magnitude and it is a matter of great magnitude. and i reserve the balance of my time. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: may i inquire of my colleague from alabama how many more speakers he has on his side? mr. bryne: we have no more speakers. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, before i close i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a letter from the national farmers union supporting mandatory g.m.o. labeling and opposed to the h.r. 1599. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a letter from dr. john w. boy jr. founder and

president of the national black farmers association. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a letter from ben burkett the executive director for the national family farm coalition opposed to h.r. 1599. i'd like to incertificate into the record a letter from the consumers union opposed to h.r. 1599. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i'd like to enclose in the record a letter from the c.e.o. of ben and jerry's opposed to the underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i'd like to incertificate in the record a letter from the food policy action group opposed to h.r. 1599. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i'd like to insert in the record a letter from the senior vice president for governmental affairs e.w.g. opposed to the h.r. 1599. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i'd like to incertificate into the record a letter from the -- insert into the record a letter from the consumer federation of america opposed to h.r. 1599 and in support of mandatory g.m.o. labeling. i'd like to also ask unanimous consent to insert into the

record the national coop grocers, a letter on behalf of them from their c.e.o., opposed to the bill. and also a letter from a group called just label it, signed by, i don't know, like a whole bunch of people. opposed to the bill and for mandatory g.m.o. labeling. and, mr. speaker, how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, first of all, oppose the rule because it is not an open rule. a number of amendments were not made in order. and again, it's this kind of hodgepodge rule where -- grab bag rule, where we're dealing with multiple issues that are not related. we have to end this practice. and by voting against this rule there's one way to demonstrate your dissatisfaction. but let me just close talking about h.r. 1599, and basically urge my colleagues to be opposed to this bill because the fact of the matter is, as a parent you know, and i think i

speak for all parents, i think we want to know what's in the food we're feeding our family. that is why i support mandatory g.m.o. labeling. not, you know, 50 different labels in 50 different states but mandatory, you know, standardized g.m.o. labeling. americans want to know what's in their food. american consumers want the same rights as consumers in 64 other countries who already have the right to know whether their food contains g.m.o.'s. why we should not have that same right is beyond me. but i guess washington knows best. support for g.m.o. labeling crosses demographic boundaries. polls show more than 90% of americans want the right to know, regardless of age, income, education or party affiliation. millions of americans have taken action. more than 1.4 million americans have joined a petition to f.d.a. demanding the right to know what's in their food. h.r. 1599, which has been dubbed the doc act, will basically block state g.m.o. labeling laws. this would preempt the g.m.o. labeling laws that have already been passed in vermont maine

and connecticut and pending in 17 other states -- state legislatures. this bill would block -- this bill also will allow the bogus natural claims to continue. that allows food companies to continue to make natural claims on g.m.o. foods and block state efforts to protect consumers from this misleading natural claim. as i pointed out i mean, consumers think when they see a product that says natural it means no g.m.o.'s. mr. speaker, you know, i've heard my colleagues, you know, say that, you know, that g.m.o.'s are safe and that -- why is this labeling necessary? look this debate is not about the safety of g.m.o.'s. as i mentioned before, i'll mention again, i consume g.m.o.'s. my family does. this is about consumers' right to know what's in the food they put on their tables. we ought to give them that right. this debate isn't about what the labels should say. we can work on the label. we aren't proposing a skull and

crossbones on the packaging. it's not a warning to consumers. it's a label simply disclosing the presence of g.m.o.'s. consumers are free to use this information as they wish. but those who want to know should be able to know. we had a fight about mandatory uniform nutrition labels in the 1980's and i think there's no doubt that consumers are better off for it. people are better served by knowing the nutrition information in their foods. why do my friends want to keep americans in the dark? i would just say, people who are listening to this debate ought to call their representatives and tell it them that they want more information, not less they want to be more informed about what they're purchasing for their families. this shouldn't be a controversial idea. this shouldn't be a radical idea. let's give the people what they want and let's do that for a change. maybe our approval ratings will go up. with that, mr. speaker again, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question and no on the rule and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bryne: thank you mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman from massachusetts' -- his interest in this very important topic. you know, we've said it several times, i'm going to say it again. what this bill does is it provides a national label where there is no label now. at the national level. and we believe so strongly in that that we put forward this bill. our side put forward this bill to give us a national label. because there is none now. there's zero. and you would be, as a consumer, totally depending upon your local government your state government coming up with it. and you may find that your government at the local level has one thing, your state government at the state level has another. the community down the road has a different one. the idea behind the uniformity is to give consumers a uniform way of understanding what this information is. i do wonder, by the way, what some people at home may be thinkinging when they hear all this talk about g.m.o. -- thinking when they hear all this talk about g.m.o.

the truth of the matter is we all are probably consume g.m.o.'s. because they have actually been a tremendous benefit not just to the agricultural industry, but to us consumers. it gives us so many different varieties of good quality food that we didn't have before. this is not about whether g.m.o.'s are a good thing or a bad thing. they're about our side providing a vehicle to give a national labeling system today, where there is none today. i think the consumers of america will appreciate the fact that we did that. i do want to go back and say one last thing about the coal ash bill. there's been a lot of talk about somehow this bill weakening the e.p.a. regulation. totally to the contrary. this bill codifies in statutory law the regulation. and whereas under the present regime at the e.p.a. they're

not going to do any oversight over how it's going to be implemented, they are going to rely upon people to file lawsuits in various federal courts around the nation this bill provides -- nation this bill provides that state regulaters who are already doing this for the most part will be the ones to provide that regulation with their stub stangs -- substantial expertise and experience. which i can tell you from my years of practicing law in federal courts, the vast majority of our federal judges don't have that. they'll do their jobs. they'll do their homework, the law clerks will work with them. but they won't bring to it what these state regulators have. we have substantially enhanced the regulation here. we've substantially enhanced its implementation by having this bill before the house and the house adopting it. so i would urge everyone as they consider these two bills to understand that what we have offered in these bills are good for consumers.

and it's good for the economy of the united states. because it lessens that regulatory burden i've talked about at the beginning. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adopting the house resolution 369 if ordered and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal if favored. this is a 15-minute vote.

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 239, the nays are 167. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is 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 will be 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 241.