the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 241.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 242. the nays are 175. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. 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 is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. 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: on this vote the yeas are 249. the nays are 169 with two members voting present. the journal stands approved. the house will come to order. pursuant to house resolution 292, this time has been designated for the taking of the official photo of the house of representatives in session.

the house will be in a brief recess while the chamber is being prepared for the photo. as soon as the photographer indicates these preparations are complete, the chair will call the house to order to resume its actual session for the taking of the photograph. at that point members will take their cues from the photographer and shortly after the photographer's finished, the house will proceed with its business. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess

>> speaker gavels out the house subject to the call of the chair. they are going to take the official portrait for the 114th congress. we'll show that to you in a minute or two. later this is an off-the-floor briefing by secretary of state john kerry, energy secretary moniz about the iran nuclear deal. when members return later this afternoon. we'll have live house coverage when they return. >> we'll break away when the house comes back for their portrait which should be in the next 15 minutes or so. few days. that wording right there is the headline in the "washington times" this morning saying that by the president saying that, that has baffled veterans, republican lawmakers saying that does not match reality. guest: yeah, in this case, unfortunately, the president has some bad information. when i talked to veterans in my district in el paso, texas, they tell me that it's very hard to get into the v.a. and when they are able to obtain an appointment, that apolicy is off canceled or rescheduled or they find out the day of that their doctor's no longer available. we conducted a survey with the

margin of error of just under 4% in el paso and found that veterans on average are waiting more than two months for primary health care appointments and more than two months for mental health care appointments and most shockingly, more than a third of veterans in el paso can't get in to see a mental health care specialist at all. and at a time when 22 veterans take their own lives, it's not enough to have the choice program and to have that additional funding. it's not enough to point to the v.a.'s own statistic which is i don't know if we can really trust them. and it's really important that we listen to veterans and veterans are telling us they can't get in to get the care that they need. host: what is going on? you mentioned the choice act. this is something that congress came together on after the phoenix v.a. hospital was exposed and the waiting list there and more money. why has not not resolved the issue? guest: the choice act was passed almost a year ago.

it was august of 2014 implemented starting in november of that year. the v.a. and i believe o.m.b. expected all $16 billion of the choice act to be committed by the first quarter of this coming year. we had a hearing that found that only $500 million of $16 billion had been spent. and today the secretary's going to be before us on the veterans affairs committee asking to move $3 billion of that uncommitted choice money over to their budget gap that we just learned about this month. host: wait. so he wants to move the choice money for something unrelated? guest: correct. we just learned and they tell us that they have just learned that the v.a., that they're underbudget by $3 billion and if we do not plug that gap, they will begin to shut clinic and hospital doors by the end of next month. and further notice -- furlough

>> we'll break away here. the house is gathering for their 114th congress photo.

>> the u.s. house getting their official portrait. members now will get a briefing off the floor on the iran nuclear deal. secretary of state john kerry energy secretary moniz are on capitol hill and will brief the members shortly. we'll have live house coverage when they return. we expect them to start debate on the coal ash disposal bill. until they dorks we'll take you back to today's "washington journal." medical part of their -- of their benefit? guest: no. i'm not talking about privatizing. but i'm talking about doing what to a degree, the v.a.'s already doing in a much more intelligent rational way in el paso and that's the best example for me to use to understand the el paso envelope so well. one third of their budget is

committed to community carom they're already sending veterans out from services ranging from oncology to mental health to physical rehabilitation out in the community. there's a better way to do this where the v.a. could choose to specialize and prioritize certain combat and service connected issues and disabilities and i'm thinking post-traumatic stress, military sexual trauma and do those at the v.a. and have the v.a. become the center of excellence for that. and if you're going to refer care outside of the community, perhaps you refer care out that is comparable to conditions and issues that the general population has. so diabetes, you come into the v.a. with the flu. you need to get your teeth fixed. perhaps the v.a. can take care of that but let's refer care out that's comparable to the general population. but if you come back from afghanistan today or you came back from v.m.a. 30 years ago and you -- vietnam 30 years ago

i want to know that you're seen at the v.a. the same day as necessary that you called for the-point -- appointment and then you have continuity and consistency in that treatment. we hear from veterans who come in for initial instake and appointment and are not seen by anyone ever again. and i hear from some psychologists that in some cases, it might be better for that veteran to not come in in the first place and uncork all those emotions and feelings and trauma that have been held inside whether it was for the last year or the last 35 years if they're not going to get that quality level of care. so i think the v.a. really has an opportunity to do something really really well that veterans, at least those that i speak with in my community desperately need and have certainly earned. and then the communities there for those services and treatment that are comparable to what you and i and the general population

might need. host: sounds like personal privatization. guest: yeah, or doing what a very thoughtful strategic way versus what is today, a very haphazard way. it is not working for anyone. host: phone lines are lighting up. congressman telling us that the veterans affairs secretary is going tell lawmakers today that they face a shortfall by $3 billion, that they need money that was set aside for veterans medical care to fill that gap. what are your questions and comments on this? we'll go to milton in west virginia, a democrat. you're up first. caller: good morning, greta. first thing i want to say is that you know, talk is cheap. he can sit there and say all the things they're going to do but i'm talking about for my son. he was in the first desert storm. it took us 15 years to get the v.a. to do something for him.

now, he's 100% disabled. he's got ptsd. he's went through about 15 therapists a psychiatrist, and they give him somebody -- right now, he's got a pregnant woman. she's going to have a baby. so she's going to leave him so they'll put somebody else in her place. and he has to dipping all that stuff again, explain it to this person. he does that every time that they give him somebody new. so he is not given any help because they keep digging it up every time they give him a different representative to take care of him. this is ridiculous and these people sit here and talk about it's nothing but b.s. they do not do nothing to help the veteran. guest: yeah, well, milton, first of all thank you for calling in and through you, i want to thank your son for his service and tell you that the experience that you just shared with us is

absolutely unacceptable and unfortunately is shared by many veterans across the country furthermore, i agree with the of that talk is cheap and it is not enough for congress and people in the ba to say we will do better. and it is not enough for the president to say we need to do better. we actually need to do better. i'm offering a proposal and solution which is that if mental health care, including tooting ptsd is really important, then we need to prioritize it. we heard from the secretary earlier this year that he is trying to hire 20,004 veterans health administration. a thousand positions that are funded, authorized. -- 20,000 positions that are funded and authorized. my proposal is that for your son

, milton, and others suffering from pts and dramatic right injury and to need mental health care, that is a priority and that's prioritize that. let's prioritize back in capital expenditures for the v.a., pts, military sexual trauma, and in part of the bargain, which is not going to be popular and probably not politically easy to take on is to reverse some of that care that is not related to military sexual trauma in the signature conditions and bones from radel and service in this country to care and community. not every veteran is going to like that and the the a may not like that but we will have to make tough decisions and we can no longer just talk about it and their money. we saw the $16 billion committed last year has really not turned into greater access or lower weight time for veterans. in fact, we are seeing weight

times increase -- wait times increase and not decrease, following the scandal in phoenix and revelations that we and other members of congress brought to light about issues in our community. guest: host: we are talking about congress -- we are talking with congressman beto o'rourke on health care. you have the national unemployment rate at 5.3% and four iraq and iran offender in unemployment, 7.2%. the amount of homelessness, 49,933. mark is a veteran in bronx, new york. an independent. caller: good morning, greta. thank you for c-span. good morning, congressman. i had the same problem that milton had in west virginia for years and i had stopped going to the v.a., but they changed everything about 20 years ago at the bronx v.a. and the james j peters system.

i'm getting excellent mental health care there now. i have had one doctor for 15, 20 years or something like that. i am properly medicated and the other day i had to go there because i had an ulcer on my tongue. i e-mailed my doctor and he said to come in right away. i went in they examined me, they gave me an ammonia shot, they sent me up to, nose, and throat. the examined me, they claimed my ears, they sent me to dental, i went to dental and they filed down my tooth that was close to bolster on my tongue and all of that in three hours. you should take a page and see what they are doing there at the james j peters v.a. because it was terrific. host: ok, mark. guest: i'd love to come out to the bronx and see the change at the james j peters facility in the bronx. i want to find out where the v.a. is succeeding and apply that success to our issues in el paso where we just found out

last week we had the worst way time in the country. 141 mental health facilities within the v.a. throughout the countries and we rank 141st in the country which means that veterans are delayed in getting care they are effectively denied in getting care and there are real consequences. in the bronx with marked or other parts of the country, we seek to the a succeeding and much to get what they did right. some of what we learned already is that the top performing the a's of the country are affiliated or in some way partnered with academic medical institutions. el paso, we are lucky and they are part of our proposal to improve the care in that community. mark, it gives me an opportunity to thank the the a, the doctors, the front-line staff, the mental health care specialists and in many cases, they are veterans

and in many cases earning far below what they can earn even in other federal departments and agencies and certainly in the private sector, but they do this because they care for veterans and they want to serve those of veterans. i think they have a really difficult job, not just in resources but in the model that is not working today. i love hearing about success stories and i appreciate mark. host: augusta georgia, a democrat. good morning, you are on the air. caller: good morning, god bless you. i saw you in june 2013 in el paso. i was actually one of their constituents in el paso at the v.a. in el paso. after relocating to augustine, i would have to say kudos to the staff at the ba there in el paso -- at the v.a. in el paso. in 2013, as a newly discharged soldier, they treated me with so much care and respect that it

was surprising to me to hear the older veterans to bring up issues and concerns. i counted it to being a newly separated servicemember however, after being out for two years, the el paso v.a., anytime i come into town, they are always willing to give me red carpet service, so i really take my hat off to them that, especially in light of the tragedy. like i brought up in june 2013 at one of those town hall meetings, congressman, was that i truly believe that one of the main issues that the v.a. is having is stemming from the toxic leadership on the department out of the house. you have so many servicemembers who are being separated

expeditiously because we are trying to downsize the armed forces that they are actually not getting the proper care that they need on the department. i brought that up to your attention in june 2013. host: let's take that up now. guest: first of all, thank you for calling in an thank you for your service. it is to hear a familiar voice from el paso and i hope things are going well in augusta georgia. i am always pleased to hear anecdotes of good experiences that a veteran had, especially at the el paso the eighth i have pursued with the president's comments that when veterans are able to get in and obtain that appointment and it is honored and they are able to see that dr. or care provider it is typically a good experience. i think our effort on the v.a. committee and certainly the secretary and president committed and we want to make sure more people have an opportunity to have that experience and shawna brought up

an interesting point which is the connection between the department of defense policy decisions that we make and that spirit that end up impacting with the v.a. does and whether that is a drawdown of our armed forces especially the u.s. army . something i don't really agree with on national security basis given the threats we face around the world, but there is a second order consequence of people who are transitioning out earlier than they had expected to. maybe too quickly and not prepared for civilian life whether that is treatment and care at the v.a., getting a job or connecting with disabilities benefits that they have earned where the v.a. today is north of 200 days on average to resolve a disability claim. if you are appealing over 2.5 years to get a response back.

the last thing, greta, on this probably the most important decision that we make as lawmakers and as a country and within the department of defense is how and when we go to war. these wars we have to understand whether it is in afghanistan and iraq or whether it is back to vietnam and korea for these veterans to come back from these countries significantly changed in many cases. somewhat lifelong disabilities and need for treatment at a v.a. that is under capacity and incapable of taking care of them. i think that needs to way, in any decision we make, whether it is today in the middle east, tomorrow in another part of the world with another conflict or war, before we send men and women into harm's way, let's ensure that when they come back he can take care of them. host: leila on twitter wants to know, who has been accountable for the problems that the v.a.? do you support events over

unions? -- do support vetws over unions? guest: i don't think that is the case here. she is probably talking about and accountability bill that has been offered by the chairman of the v.a. committee and i want to begin by commending him for addressing this issue. i mentioned earlier that i don't know if we can spend enough money to fix the v.a. it is not a resource issue primarily and i don't think we can fire enough people to fix the v.a. we will not be able to fire our way out of this, but yes we do need to hold people accountable. it is astonishing to see some of these egregious examples of lost reasons and misconduct. for example the v.a. hospital in denver, i think originally possibly had $1 million and $600 million and now $1.7 billion -- over $1 billion over budget and no one was fired.

the person responsible was allowed to retire. to see examples of people not being held accountable in the v.a. all the time, so, yes certainly people should be fired and there should be consequences. as the comment on twitter might suggest, removing civil-service protections, i do not think that is the way to go. i do think we need to see accountability, i think we need to see people take responsibility for their actions. i do not know that you can change the culture and organizations in large at the v.a. it has a discretionary budget and i don't know if you can change that overnight. i commend the chairman and others who are focused on this who are working on changing the culture to value excellence accountability, and responsibility. where today, i think we have impunity far too often. host: on twitter they say, you can do all the money in the world to it but the percentage

falls away down which leaves nothing for vets. given everything you have said and our reaction from twitter audience, give a grade two v.a. asked -- after bob mcdonald. how is he done so far? guest: he has been on the job right around a year. i think he is completely committed. i think his integrity is unquestionable. i think the team he has assembled with gibson is one of the best that you can bring to the problems at the v.a. and yet when i look at those issues that matter the most to me on veterans been able to adapt in a timely fashion, mental health care access when you have record numbers of suicides in veterans who are suffering of the consequence of not getting in, we are failing. i do not want to give the secretary himself a grade, but i would give the v.a. a great event -- a grade of an 'f.'

we are failing. we need to come back having their end of the bargain with this country unable and unwilling, despite the lip service from the president to members of congress to the v.a. to the country, we have been unwilling to make the top decisions necessary to deliver that care. i am willing to start offering solutions and this proposal would prioritize mental health care access, treatment for tbi pds military sexual trauma, and that comes at a cost. the dollar cost around the country but it is also a trade-off in terms of service and care that veterans currently get, those were able to get in and be seen for any problem at the v.a. today. i think in the future we will have to look of our community care for issues and conditions that are comparable -- popular in the general population. not easy to say but we can say that we should spend more but we've got to do a better job

and to expect a different result is the definition of insanity. host: mats in baltimore. independent, good morning to you. caller: hi, i would like to expand the coverage the little. i'm a world war ii veteran and i have been very fortunate and i have had very little action do for the medical part of the v.a. the rest of the v.a. has eroded from a service organization handling 50 million -- 15 million veterans from world war ii until bureaucracy. once the transition is made, it is almost impossible to reverse it as a congressman so wisely said. the thing is that that is the way to approach it. not to approach it with money as we know is futile.

it is to get it back to where it was a service organization. you triage the people coming in just the way you do in a field hospital. you find out which of these need immediate care, which have deferred care, which have low care and those people are informed as to what the situation is. host: ok, we will take that. smith? -- congressman? guest: thank you for your service. great to hear from a will or two. i think that point alone goes straight to some of the pressures the v.a. faces. today, we are committed, we should be committed and should be taking care of veterans whose service stretches back to 1940. we know going back to world war i that the peak period for service v.a. from the to those veterans were in the 1950's to

early 1960's. we have not even hit demands for the vietnam era veterans. we have just seen p demand for world war ii and we have not scratched the surface of veterans who served in wars in the gulf and in the middle east. i think matt's suggestions are all too rational and common sense, well, let's treat this as an issue of triage referring care work and best be delivered and ensure timeliness, access quality of care, and great value for the taxpayer. i think cost has got to be a factor because when you use of resources like spending over $1 billion over budget in colorado, those resources come from veterans in new york, texas throughout the country. i think getting greater value for the veteran, for the taxpayer has got to be in important component. host: we will hear from a republican in new mexico. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you today? host: fine, what is your

question or comment for the congressman? caller: my comment is i am very familiar with care with mental health issues and my heart goes out to the guys that cannot get help -- mental health. one of the answers might be to hiring good -- not psychiatrist necessarily but good psychologists because they are in charge of knowing what is going on with you and taking good notes. i know a lot of people do not like to hear about psychologists , but they are really valuable in the part that they usually see you before the psychiatrist. host: congressman? guest: i think she makes a great point here that it is important we get psychiatrist and also

important that we get psychologist. important that we get social workers, important that we get there this. it is important that we have the complete treatment team at the v.a. to see people at a time when they need to be seen and to have that continuity and consistency of care. to do that, we cannot continue business as usual. we are going to have to pay the psychiatrist and psychologist more than what we are paying them not to attractive to the v.a. in the first place and then retained them once they are there. that may come at some cost to other project and programs within the v.a. maybe we cannot be building these billion-dollar plus medical facilities across the country. maybe we have to work with existing medical facilities, build more clinics, located with private providers. if we are going to take care mental health, which i really do think is a priority in the v.a. right now, not to the exclusion of everything else but if it is a priority, it is the most important thing. then we will have to act with the budget accordingly. i appreciate the point made there.

host: take a look at this chart for together by "l.a. times" with numbers from the veterans affairs department. the suicide gap via mental health they vary by gender and veteran status. nearly 174 thousand suicides in 23 states between 2000 and 2010. women in the darker shade of green and men in the lighter shade. these are among people who never served, women killed themselves far less often than men. take a look at this among veterans, the suicide rates are much higher but also much closer. eric in fairfax, virginia. the public in. you are on there with the congressman. caller: thank you for c-span and to our particular call. i am a combat vendor and -- i am a combat veteran and served as a marine. i guess we are ok but the message i would like to give to the congressman is i understand that you will have the secretary

for veteran affairs at the committee today. what i do not want to see is what we typically do in washington and that is to take the logical fallacy of attacking -- let's attack the secretary. he is doing with the proper much bigger than he is. as you stated earlier, the culture at the v.a. is broken and it is a daunting task to change the course -- the culture of an organization that large. i think we need to focus on what problems kelly fix? because we are not going to fix them all. the point i want to make, i know we do not have a lot of time, do not attack the secretary. let's attack the problem and let's get our veterans taking care of because right now, i would rate the v.a. with an 'f.' host: congressman?

guest: thank you for your service and i want to thank your son as well and i'm glad both of you are here and ok. i really appreciate his comments about not engaging in that attack because it is not constructive. just know we are closer to the desired goal of improving the v.a., access to veterans quality of care, and outcome once they are seen by the community provider after a v.a. referral. it is easy to do that, point the finger. the blame for the responsibility for turning the v.a. around life not just with the secretary but with congress which authorizes resources, appropriate the resources and through law, it decides how the resources will be used. you asked me to grade the secretary earlier and i had greeted the v.a. as an 'f." i would include congress and the past year administration's, including this one in terms of

actually turning things around. we grade not on effort in this country, we should not great on effort we should grade on results and the results are far too many veterans have been abysmal. i think turning that around will be more than just taking the secretary to town. it will be coming up with solutions. none of them easy and probably most of them politically difficult, but solutions nonetheless that are going to help veterans get what they have earned. host: the speaker of the house often treats but veterans issues and talks about the administration failing on this. have you heard from the chairman of veterans affair, jeff miller, that legislation will come to the floor? that there is solution being put forward? guest: yes. he has got an accountability bill which i think even he would admit is not the full solution. you hear these egregious cases of v.a. employees making terrible mistakes for engaging in crime or fraud and

malfeasance who are allowed to retire, and that is galling to all of us. i commend him for working on that. i do not know if we will be able to fire our way out of the problem but he is trying to address accountability. in terms of a conference hope reform package that looks at access and prioritizes mental health care, addresses accountability and responsibility within the v.a. both sides of the v.a. committee, democrats and republicans, and both sides together are working on that right now. one year after choice, which many of us believed was going to be to turn this around when you're after choice, which has not done that, i think many of us, myself included, are coming to the conclusion that the problems in the v.a. are much more fundamental and systemic and are going to need a much bolder solution than simply more resources for the administration. host: remind viewers of the choice act was how much money?

guest: $16 billion. 10 billions of that was to purchase care in the community. as the president said in the clip you played earlier, if you waited over 30 days and you live 40 miles from the clinic or nearest medical facility you could use the choice program to see a doctor in the community. what we found in our survey in el paso, most veterans do not even understand, have not been educated by the v.a. about eligibility for the choice program, partly because of that, we are not seen the utilization. the money is going and spent and the secretary today will ask us to pay 3 billion v.a. dollars from choice and put it into the general fund. they've got to explain dollars of the choice act and it was 60 million total to hire more staff in the v.a. they have not been able to do that. a very tough challenge in defense of the secretary of the of the a and the challenges they need to me nonetheless. host: five minutes left that congressman beto o'rourke.

democrat from texas. charles, you are up next. also a veteran. good morning. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: my name is charles. i would like to v.a. give some comments about the -- about the v.a. host: we are listening, charles. caller: thank you for having me on. i have been with the v.a. for probably about 30 years. i am 70 years old and they have done a lot for me. i think that the best directory have had was in safety -- you are given the new director more things to work with which you should have kept the old ones and give him the same things. now, i have had bad things happen to me in the v.a., but i corrected them because i was --

i am the commander of the purple hearts and i had just a little bit more people that i can talk to to get it done. the v.a. is now and the doctors coming into the v.a. have a protocol and they want to go by what the protocol of each individual or age patient. these protocols do not pertain to every individual. i will give you one example, i want -- i went and she told the, well, you got to do this, you got to do that, and you got to do this. to keep my -- i said, i have been doing that and i said, i wanted something else to be done and she said, well, this is not my protocol, this is -- and i do not believe in.

host: let's take that issue a. sounds of bureaucracy in health care. guest: first of all, charles, to write for your service and sharing the anecdote. one of the larger points to take from his comments is that he has been saying -- he has been seen at the ba for 30 years now and overall, please of the care of a concerned about the bureaucracy and overly prescriptive manner in which people are taking care of. i think that is legitimate concern. i think as old as the v.a. is and as large as that bureaucracy has become, that is certainly going to be a byproduct of that. again, there is no better time than now to truly shape that up and fundamentally reform the v.a. ask difficult questions like should some veterans for some conditions be treated in the community primarily in said about the v.a.? and could the v.a. break out of

its existing mold of bureaucracy and become a center of excellence for some unique service-connected issues? where if you come back with pts or to be our military sexual trauma or a number of other signature conditions and wounds from service, you will be seen immediately, you will get world-class treatment and outstanding outcomes. if your conditions are comparable to the general population perhaps you are seen after v.a. perhaps that is we a primary position is or it takes place in the community. i think that is a significant change but i do not think it is too much to ask in order to prioritize those issues and conditions in veterans who really need that help. host: our next phone call from veterans, david in florida, an independent. hi, david. caller: yes, what suggestion right away is >> we'll breakway here for comments from secretary of state john kerry on capitol hill.

perfect%% fwet out of the -- get out of the politics and into the facts. so we are very much looking forward to answering any and every question that the members of the house have and then later the members of the senate. we are convinced that the agreement that we have arrived at with world powers is an agreement that will prevept iran from -- prevent iran from the potential of securing a nuclear weapon. it will make the region, our friends and allies safer. it will make the world safer. and we are convinced that the absence of any viable alternative absolutely underscores that fact. so we look forward to the discussion today and look forward later to answering other questions from all of you. thank you very much. >> over a year. is he a part of this deal?

>> secretary of state john kerry before answering the -- entering briefing room with members of the house for briefing along with energy secretary ernest moniz on the just completed iran nuclear agreement. again the congress will get 60 days to approve or disapprove of that. and we don't expect any final action on that until after the august recess. the secretary of state also meeting with the senate. he'll be back up on capitol hill tomorrow before the senate foreign relations committee. along with secretary moniz, along with treasury secretary jack lew. while the agreement struck by president obama may have been applauded by the united nations, i think he faces

serious skepticism on capitol hill, says john boehner. he cited comments made by democratic senator robert menendez of new jersey. the biggest democratic critic. it preserves iran's nuclear program. that's from the hill this afternoofpblet we'll bring you any other comments from members, etc., as they hear from secretary of state john kerry and ernest moniz. the house itself should gavel back in around 4:00, maybe a bit after to resume debate -- begin debate on coal ash legislation and amendments to follow as well. we will -- as we wait we'll take you back to some more of today's "washington journal." we are back with congressman tom rice, republican, south carolina. he sits on the transportation and infrastructure committee. the senate is trying to work through a six-year highway funding bill. the house passed a five-month extension. the current funding stream

expires next week. how can this get resolved? guest: that's a great question and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. my focus in congress has been on american competitiveness and jobs certainly as a structure is one of the main things that makes us competitive in the world. our competitiveness has slipped relative to other countries, certainly in the last 15 years or 20 years. we need to work hard to regain that. one of the ways that we can do that is to continue to improve our instructor. another sideline issue, or i guess closely related issue, is the uncertainty that washington creates with all these mandate fixes. one of the most troubling calls i got in my two and a half years in congress was a call last june from my south carolina secretary of transportation. they said i understand the highway trust fund is going to expire in august. what does that mean?

and i supposed to not take any new contracts? i'm i supposed to contact the, -- cancel the contract that i have? you configured and assure her that, oh certainly, congress will do something, but these days it seems that you can't rely on congress to do anything. all of these and eight fixes that the fda, that was something that we finally got out of the process of being inundated -- bandaided after 15 years. we've now done patches to the highway trust fund. i want to relieve that uncertainty. i have put forth a bill, it is revenue neutral. it does not raise any taxes. it moves taxes from the general fund to the highway trust fund. the way it does that is it raises the gas tax by $.10 which costs the average driver hundred $30 a year and then gives a hundred $30 year on the income tax credit.

host: how do you pay for a? you're getting a tax credit. guest: it moves the money out of the general fund. there is a deficit in the general fund. what we are doing with these packages is transferring money periodically out of the general fund. what i'm trying to do is create certainty for the highway trust fund so my secretary back home does not have to worry when she reads the paper. host: will that cover the gap? guest: it will cover the gap completely and create an excess of about $10 billion over the next six years. what do your -- host: what to do your colleagues think? guest: i don't know how receptive my leadership is at this point, but i will tell you at this point that the uncertainty in my opinion is as bad or worse than a lot of the other problems that we face. in my opinion going back to american competitiveness we see

3.3% gdp growth right now. it has been dropping. cbs said they predicted our 10 year growth to be 3.1%. then it went down to 2.9%. i believe that a lot of the reason for that is because we have not solved these problems. there are four or five basic problems that this country faces . if we could take those off the table, i think instead of 2.3% we would be at 4%. one of those is the highway trust fund. another is the social security trust fund. you know what the problem with federal trust fund is? they are not funded and you can't trust them. other than that they are great. immigration is another one that needs to be taken off the table. and tax reform. the thing that bothers me about these things, is everybody agrees they are problems. the president, congress, the house, the senate. the people.

republicans, democrats. everybody when they give their political speeches, they talk about these things. and yet nobody is offering solutions for them. i'm going to start putting a solutions, this is the first one. host: we are talking about the highway plan and infrastructure in your communities. congress needs to address this by next week. the house passed another five-month extension. the senate is working on a six-year deal. you are fixing -- speaking of the dock six, how boehner and speaker pelosi came together to get that off the table. senator -- senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has teamed up with texas senator barbara boxer on a deal. what do you not like about how they have dealt with this? guest: i have not seen the deal. i am open to any process that they may offer. i have offered up my ideal --

my ideas, revenue neutral, but i want to see anyone other ideas that anyone else has. we need to have the political courage to deal with these four overhangs to our economy. if we could grow our economy at 4% instead of 2.3%, then all these kids coming out of college would not have such a hard time finding jobs. some of these people that have left the workforce and given up would come back in the workforce . you'd see our economy flourish. i think it is entirely within the power of the washington political establishment, if they only had the political will to do it. it would certainly be great if the president, who is the best person to lead this effort, which is take a leadership role. host: you said you had not seen the senate bill, it is over 1000 pages. democrats yesterday, senate democrats filibustering a move by the majority leader to put it on the floor, saying they want time to read it. the majority leader saying you better read quickly because he wants to put it on the floor

today. a six-year funding stream for the highway trust fund, again, the house passed a five-month extension. that is our conversation, we are listening to tom rice. bill in new jersey, and independent. caller: good morning. my question simply is our roads our bridges, our tunnels, and our airports need repair. we have to raise the revenue to do those repairs no matter the cost and that revenue needs to be raised with to social programs. guest: well, i hear you and i would take issue with that. if you looks, our revenues are as high nominally as they have ever been. we are bringing in more dollars than we ever had -- half, number one. over two, there is a percentage of gdp which is really the more accurate way to measure revenues. we are above our 40 year

average. i don't think the problem is in revenues. i think the problem is in spending. that is why my provision is revenue neutral. host: mary in pennsylvania, and democrat. caller: i just have to say that you are full of baloney. we give so much money to corporate welfare and neither the republicans nor the democrats wants to be bothered with trying to get rid of those loopholes. if we got rid of those loopholes we would have plenty of money for infrastructure. you people are all paid by these corporations, and you will not touch their loopholes or their tax breaks. host: take a look at the front page of the "wall street journal ," this morning. lawmakers are in the -- beginning of discussing and ambitious tax overhaul. this is part of an effort to find money for a long-term highway overhaul.

-- highway bill. guest: certainly. again i am open to any ideas that anyone has for getting a permanent fix to the highway trust fund. if it is, there has been a lot of talk about free shoring money that is held back by multinational corporations. how realistic that is, i'm not sure. there has been talk about offshore drilling, i'm not sure. everyone is looking for other solutions been raising revenue. you said that i am paid by corporate interests, which is absolute nonsense, number one. number two, i watched to assure him that i am all in favor of tax reform, and i am all in favor of our system, our tax code was written 50 or 60 years ago. at the time it was competitive. today it is not competitive with the rest of the world. it hurts american business trying to create american jobs

here. it absolutely prevents companies from moving here from overseas because they have to pay more taxes. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. our tax code is riddled with exemptions and reductions that don't make a lot of sense. everybody calls those loopholes. there are deductions and credits in the tax code, some of them i would classify as a loophole but most of them, 95% of them, were put there for a good reason. there are times when we need for example, to encourage energy production. when we thought we were running out of oil. accelerated depreciation for various things it's versions for different types of product -- exclusions for different types of product. that being said, not all of these things what i classify as loopholes. if it were me what i would do is lower the tax rate below 25%. yet it down to the international norm, and do away with a lot of

the deductions and credits. what i don't want to do is call these loopholes because most of these things were put in as valid, to encourage production of energy or other things the country needed at the time. host: this is what the top lawmakers in the -- are discussing, how to fund the highway trust fund. topics include whether to eliminate the u.s. system of taxing companies on their worldwide income, what safeguards to adopt to prevent future abuses, and whether to provide special tax treatment. it goes on to say, there is already one airy as clear agreement. they could raise revenue for highways by imposing a one-time tax on income being held offshore. caller: good morning. the question is this. do we have in the american public having a safety issue? that is one of the bigger things

to always deal with with transportation, is the safety issue. here we, the largest country in the world in reference to how we do business around the world but yet china takes our money and puts their transportation system in place and we still cannot get it together in congress because they are worrying about who is up one who is down one. how do you protect the american public? guest: well, i agree with you that there is too much concern about the next election and not enough concern about actually moving things forward, which is why i put forth this proposal to provide permanent funding for the highway trust fund or it -- . host: don, montana. you're next. caller: hi congressman, i would like you to give a grade to these agencies.

highway transportation epa board of education, irs. they all come up with an s -- f. give the money back to the states or don't even let it get out of the states. that way you won't have to make all these tough decisions that cost us money. thank you. guest: thank you for the question. i would support the evolution of most of the highway trust fund money to the states. i do think the federal government has some role in the transportation system. i don't think the interstate system is completely out. right here in washington you can see if you look outside the window that the interstate system could use improvement. it could certainly use improvement in my home state. i would not support complete devolution, but most of the money and the highway trust fund is tribute to the states now. host: this is what the few charitable trust put together --

pew charitable trust put together. 25% comes from the federal government about $64 billion. 20% comes from the state. local government spending, about 35%. cato institute putting together paperwork calling on the government to get out completely as you are saying. they say states can fill the gap. guest: well, the highways -- highway trust fund money comes out of the states with the gas tax and most of it goes back to the states. i only point is that there needs to be a national transportation system like the interstate system, and the federal government has some role in building that out and in maintenance. that would be my only hold back on complete devolution to the states. host: by the way, the congressional budget office putting together these numbers. you can look at it take --

dating back to 2000. there were surpluses, there was revenue in there. you can see that it has dropped down and it has continued to drop down, adding the price tag at about $100 billion needed for the next six years. guest: again, my proposal would pay for the next six years. it would raise the gas tax by $.10 and take it through the next six years, take the -- that issue off the table. you have to keep in mind the last time the gas taxes raised was 1993 and they did not index it. host: steve o on twitter says why do you believe in regressive taxes on the people -- for cop -- poor gas taxes, are winners for the people? guest: my solution would be to give a rebate to the people, and it phases out at 75,000.

it is not for the 1%. it is for the masses. host: the washington times says that the senate is on a collision course for the -- with the house. all sides agree on the need for long-term bill, but the trick is finding enough money without raising taxes, something the gop has rolled out. a six-year extension would require about 90 billion in new money. do you want to respond that? guest: my bill does not raise funding -- taxes and it provides a six-year funding. they say the trick is finding that solution, i have put that solution on the table. i'm certainly willing to listen to anyone else's idea, that we have got to take the highway trust fund's continued potential for bankruptcy off the table. host: why isn't this getting traction, then? guest: i think anytime you mention any type of tax increase, even if it is offset people run for the doors. host: we will go to robert, a

democrat in tuscaloosa, alabama. caller: i just want to ask a couple of questions before i go to the highway. why du refer to the government -- do you refer to the government as washington, and why when you run do you never say i am going to demolish this position? every year all of you run you never say i'm going to demolish this position was i win. secondly, with the highways, we have the worst highways that i have seen in my lifetime and i am almost 80 years old. one other thing. you don't have to answer it. why is it that you don't want to pay the highway bill? is it because you people want to let the president get his lesson? argue ashamed -- aren't you ashamed? thank you for listening. host: a lot there. guest: i'm not even really sure

to -- how to respond to all that. i'm certainly not against the president for the color of his skin. i'd do wish he would -- i do wish he would lead on some of these issues. i'm not really sure what that question was. again i have put forth a proposal with respect to -- i agree with you, our highways need repair. a are in bad shape. i have put forward a proposal that will deal with that. i do believe we need to start worrying more about -- the less -- next election and more about the country. this is one way to take the highway trust fund bankruptcy off the table. host: last week? guest: last week i voted against it. i voted for it because it was the first time it came up in congress. when this temporary patch came

up last week i voted against it. we need a permanent fix. i have put a permanent fix on the table. this is not the only possible solution, but we have got to take this off the table. it hurts competitiveness, it hurts our economy, it hurts jobs. if we had this off the table and we were working on infrastructure instead of our jeep -- gdp growth being 2.2%, it might be 2.6%. and that means hundreds of thousands more jobs for our kids coming out of school. host: we are talking about and protector in your state and your community, with congressman tom rice taking your questions this morning. unrest faces a deadline to approve new funding for the highway trust fund. patchwork repairs have snarled the nation's roads. breakdown have become routine on aging transit systems. democrats, (202) 748-8000.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . wendy, you are on the air. caller: first of all, i want to thank you for not going with a band-aid solution. as a hard-working american and a taxpayer. we are former elected delegates under george bush, the first four years. i just want to say the gridlock has to stop. we did people. we are taxpayers. we pay for this stuff. we all use the roads. we all fly in airplanes. i am an in-home daycare provider. i have done my job for 20 years now. i am in april -- a world community. my parents have to use those roads every day.

god bless you, you continue your efforts and quit the band-aids. we all are american taxpayers, we deserve more. host: ok wendy. guest: thank you ma'am, very much. let me say, we all get up and we campaign and we talk about issues that face the country. infrastructure is certainly one of those. the highway trust fund everybody, republicans and democrats. democrats get up and talk about social security, and tax reform. then we get here to washington and nobody does anything about it. i completely agree with what you said. i think there is huge frustration in the public when we see people talking about these problems and not offering any solutions. i have offered a solution. a permanent fix for the highway trust fund. i have thought about ways to actually get this done. this conversation earlier, about devolution of the highway trust fund to the states, great idea.

anytime you can take a little bureaucracy out, wonderful. what is the chance that that will happen in this congress? zilch. zero. i try to find something that would actually happen. i take my proposal is an easy fix. it will result in an improved transportation system. it will grow our gdp, and it will give our young people jobs. i will be offering solutions to do other things as well. i got into government not to talk but to offer solutions. host: what you make us some of your colleagues in the house and senate trying to attach unrelated items to the -- this debate over the highway funds? the iran deal. the issue with planned parenthood antiabortion videos. what you make of that? guest: some of those issues certainly i would support and some of them i wouldn't. but they shouldn't be attached to the highway fund. it is too important. host: take a look at the hill newspaper.

ted cruz from texas, running for president. he is threatening to tie the iran deal to the highway bill. caller: good morning. to ask my congressman, good morning, tom rice. host:guest: how are you my friend? caller: i'm fine. i'll tell you why. i will never when you were running there was that issue with i-73, pathways to progress. how is that coming along? guest: we are still working on the permitting. that is a torturous process, another example of the failure of federal bureaucracy. it takes 10 years to get a road approved with the current environmental laws. that is something that certainly needs to be looked at, and something that makes us less competitive -- us less competitive. we are working through that process and we are getting much

closer. i will also say that that is an example of how the federal government still has a role in highway transportation. that is an example of an interstate that is badly needed. i-73 in south carolina and one that the federal government has a role in seeing constructed. but let me, nothing there, and that is the torturous approval process. i saw one of these international rating agencies that rated transportation in the united states. we are 46th in the world. it has gotten completely absurd. too many people are allowed to hold up permitting for little or no reason. there is a perfect example of that in my home county right now, where the local government is building a road called international drive. the day before the

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> iran demonstrates seriousness and legitimacy by releasing the americans that they hold, providing any information they have about mr. levinson. but specifically by releasing the innocent americans that they currently hold in prison. next month man will have been in iran, in prison, for four years. mr. kildee: a man whose crime apparently is only that he is of iranian desent and -- descent and served in the united states military. i made this point, secretary kerry reiterated and i take him at his word that they continue to press for his release. i wanted to make sure that folks listening understand and iran understands that for many

and a good number of members of congress, what they do about the status of these americans will be a factor in how we view the agreement itself. thank you. questioner: how was secretary kerry's tone, how were the questions, you know, members? mr. kildee: i didn't i think it was combative. it was generally quite collegial. some members have formulated opinions on the agreement. some apparently had formulated opinions on it long before they had a chance to review it. but i think secretary kerry, secretary moniz, secretary lu all have done a very good job of walking through the specific elements. the most important point that i think continues to be the overarching point is that we have to consider not only the path forward with an agreement, but consider what the logical path forward might be without an agreement and they made that point very clearly. questioner: [inaudible] mr. kildee: i'm still evaluating. i have a generally positive view of diplomatic efforts as opposed to others but i'm still looking at the text and obviously i will also consider

iran's treatment of the americans as one of the determinants it. won't be the sole determinant. but it will be one. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> just outside the briefing room where members of the house are hearing from secretary kerry and secretary moniz on the iran nuclear deal. this is in the visitors center area of capitol hill. the house will gavel back in sometime this afternoon after 4:00 eastern. they'll begin work on their measure that deals with coal ash regulation. energy secretary moniz, secretary of state john kerry and the treasury secretary, jack lew will be back on capitol hill tomorrow. this time testifying in front

of the senate foreign relations committee on that iran nuclear deal. we'll have that live for you on c-span3 tomorrow morning beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. also want to let you know that right now on c-span3, we're doffering the news conference with the attorney general, loretta lynch, reports this afternoon that the justice department is indicting dylan roof the shooter in the charleston church murders, on dozens of federal charges. the 21-year-old roof reports the a.p. is going to be indicted on 33 federal charges. that announcement under way now. just started moments ago. the attorney general speaking to reporters. you can follow that over on c-span3. also online at c-span.org. here on c-span, we'll wait a couple of minutes and hear from -- likely hear from more members as well. >> did you have a question?

questioner: i understand there was some discussion in the briefing about concerns from some members about so-called side deals and i'm just wondering, because i believe this is an issue that you have raised some concerns about, whether or not you could speak to that? >> sure. i traveled to vienna and met with the iaea on friday of last week. in that meeting, myself and senator cot en were informed there are two secret side deals. deals that are between the country of iran and the iaea. mr. pompeo: i had a chance to ask secretary kerry about it today. he indicated that we did not have that document. or either of those documents. there may be other side agreements about which i'm not aware. but we don't have either of those documents. he said he received some briefing he indicated we're just going to have to trust the iaea on what they're doing with respect to the p.m.d. program. i find that completely unacceptable. i don't see how a member of congress could vote for an agreement not knowing what the full scope of the agreement actually is. so i hope we'll get those documents and they can be considered by members of congress as we prepare to is

evaluate whether we vote yes or no on this agreement. questioner: did the secretary say those deals were with the iaea and not the united states -- and the united states was not a part of them? mr. pompeo: that's correct. questioner: more broadly, sort of, do you see that as a problem for this deal, the deal itself, getting through congress? mr. pompeo: absolutely. it's an enormous problem to be asked to vote on an agreement which you have not seen in its totality. that is, these are components of the agreement. these are important verification processes that are going to take place with respect to for example where there were suspected explosive device testing taking place for iran for their -- that were nuclear-related. to the extent we don't know what the iaea's work product is going to look like. i don't know how one evaluates this deal. i don't know how you can approve a deal. i don't know how the secretary himself approved a deal when he had not seen all of the terms that were part of the this -- were part of this agreement, part of the common set of understandings that led to the outcome we find ourselves in today. questioner: will those things come out before the 60-day review is over?

mr. pompeo: i'm counting on it. i think every member of congress should demand that we get access to those documents. it may well be that when we see them they're fine, they're agreements that make sense, but we don't have any idea what's in those agreements and absencing those documents, i find it hard to imagine that anyone can vote for an agreement which is going to hand $150 billion to a state sponsor of terror. questioner: [inaudible] mr. pompeo: he indicated he was comfortable with iaea's process and that it would be fine and that all would be well. but it's not surprising that he would say that. he's signed off on this, having not seen the agreement. i find that stunning. anyone else? great. thank you all. >> kansas republican mike pompeo speaking to reporters outside the briefing room. they've been hearing house members, republican and democratic, have been hearing from the secretary of state, john kerry, the energy

secretary, ernest moniz, about the iranian nuclear agreement. congress will have 60 days to vote yes or no on that agreement. but any final action is not likely to happen until after the august recess. which is about -- a little over a week away. meanwhile in iran, "the new york times" reports that the iranian parliament will wait at least 80 days before voting on a nuclear agreement reached last week with world powers, as legislators decided on tuesday to form a committee to study the accord state radio reported. "the new york times" writes, the legislators in iran have effectively opted to withhold their judgment until they know whether the american congress approves of the deal. analysts said, as way to avoid losing face by appearing to look weak if the agreement is rejected by their counterparts in the u.s. and the first committee, first senate hearing, the senate foreign relations hearing, on the iranian nuclear deal is coming up tomorrow, 10:00

eastern, on c-span3. secretary of state kerry will testify. the energy secretary ernest moniz, and also treasury secretary jack lew. we're live on c-span awaiting to hear from other members. we'll stay here live to see if we hear more. mr. rohrabacher: this agreement would not do anything to prevent the iranian mullah regime from obtaining a nuclear weapon rather than just making it themselves. i mean, they can buy it from north korea or from let's say

pakistan. and this treaty will do nothing to prevent that. and so that's the same. and i've also been saying that for six years, because of this treaty, we have been unable and unwilling to risk the treaty by supporting those democratic elements in iran which -- who would have eliminated the mullah regime and thus eliminated the threat. of course if we pass this agreement, that will be over our heads forever. so this is -- this treaty, if we pass it, is basically an assurance that we will not be supporting the democratic elements in iran, which would eliminate the mullah regime, which is the threat to world peace. questioner: did you bring that

up? what was the reaction? mr. rohrabacher: i didn't bring it up. questioner: did you have a sense at all whether the cabinet secretaries were sort of speaking to the whole house in their briefing or maybe just to the concerns of kind of the cross-section of democrats who might be the ones in the end to protect the white house here when it comes to votes and stuff like that? mr. rohrabacher: it was a very honest discussion and a classified discussion of a very important treaty and i don't give them any other motives except to try to explain it in a way that they could encourage us to vote for it. questioner: was there any part -- sorry for reaching to the emotional part of it, but was there any part of the briefing that was contentious or disrespectful? one of your colleagues came out and said john kerry wasn't respectful enough of members of congress. mr. rohrabacher: i didn't see that. if we pass this treaty, you can count on the fact that the united states will not be supporting the democratic

elements in iran, who are the real solution to the mullah threat to world peace. we have -- you know, this goes all the way back to the time when the president first was president and he had all these demonstrators in the streets in iran asking, what side are you on, united states? and our president didn't even speak up or say one word about this. if we pass this treaty, they're going -- that will be held over our head, oh, you're going to undermine the treaty if you help the young students or if you help the -- you know, there are more kurds in iran than there are in iraq. so we're not going to help any of them because out of fear that will it undermine the treaty. plus the treaty does not cover iran and will not prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon on their own sway else.

-- some way else. it's not a good agreement. it will not work, in the long-term it will not work for the benefit of peace but it will kick the can down the road so we don't have an -- so we don't have a con fronttation in the next six months to a year -- confrontation in the next six months to a year. questioner: there are concerns -- [inaudible] -- the u.s. was not privy to. do you think that's a concern a lot of lawmakers have? mr. pompeo brought up the side deals deals between iran and the iaea. mr. rohrabacher: i don't know how much i can go into that. you have to be very careful. you go in there and if we say something that we didn't know beforehand they'll take away our security clearance. people of goodwill can disagree and i respect secretary kerry and i think that he came here and opened himself up to

questions in front of everybody in the congress. he has to be commended for that. but he didn't make his case to me because i'm just not looking about the agreement, i'm trying to figure out what impact we're going to see in the years ahead in terms of regional peace and stability, as well as will the mullahs have their hands on this particular nuclear weapon. thank you all very much. >> mr. rohrabacher:, one of -- mr. rohrabacher, one of several members of congress who have spoken with reporters, house members are being briefed on the iran nuclear deal by the secretary of state, john kerry and also by energy secretary, ernest moniz. one that briefing wraps up, we expect the house to gavel back

in later this afternoon. could be around 4:00 eastern. to begin work on the coal ash regulation bill. with an hour of general debate and a number of amendments to be debated this afternoon in the house. on the iran issue "the washington post" has filed an urgent petition with the united nations in the hopes that the institution will pressure iran to release journalist jason, the newspaper's top editor, and the -- the top editor and lawyers told the reporters today, i think the associated press writes that that announcement came on the one-year anniversary of the arrest of him and his iranian wife who was later released. he's the "post's" bureau chief. he remains in prison under charges of espionage and distributing propaganda against the islamic republic. the iran nuclear deal under now a 60-day consideration from congress for an up or down vote with the secretary of state set to testify tomorrow before the senate foreign relations

committee. he'll be joined by the energy secretary, ernest moniz, and also by treasury secretary, jack lew. that's tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. we will have that live four on c-span3. and also -- for you on c-span3 and also on c-span radio. we'll stay here and wait to see if others come to the microphone to speak on the briefing this afternoon.

mr. thornberry: chairman of the armed services committee. you know, i think it's fair to say there is bipartisan skepticism about whether iran will meet its commitments under

this deal. about whether the administration will hold them to it. and about what happens with all of iran's other activities that concern us so much. so i think there's a lot more work for congress to do in the armed services committee. we're going to be holding hearings and other events to examine the military implications, including whether other countries will be encouraged to develop their own nuclear capability in order to keep up with what iran is allowed to do under this agreement. and whether there's an increased threat to u.s. service members who are in the region. like in iraq and so forth. so there's lots of work for congress to do and we'll do it and treat this as seriously as it deserves. because this is a very serious issue. questioner: what issue -- [inaudible] mr. thornberry: there's been a variety of questions. the way i categorize it is i think some of the questions are

about whether this is a good deal or not. another category is whether it will be verified, whether iran will keep its commitments. and another category is what about all the other things they're doing, the missile, the funding of terrorism and and other things. so there's a variety. questioner: how would you describe the tone of the meeting? mr. thornberry: i don't -- lots of questions. i said lots of skepticism. obviously the administration folks are very adamant about what a great deal it is. they're putting on a heavy sales job, you know, as one would expect. but my point is, i think there's a lot more work for congress to do. to examine some of the statements that we've heard and see. thank you all.

>> congressman thornberry who is the chairman of the armed services committee saying there is quote, bipartisan skepticism on the iran nuclear deal. members of the house have been briefed by secretary of state john kerry ernest moniz also on the pending agreement. congress under a 60-daytime clock now to either approve or disapprove of that agreement made by the p-5 plus one countries, the six nations the u.s., the u.k., france russia and china and germany. and iran on that nuclear agreement. agreed to by the security council on monday, by unanimous vote there. we're hearing from a number of members. we're waiting to hear them on microphone but also off microphone as well. fox tweeting about emmanuel cleaver, the missouri democrat, saying that they were going in great detail in terms of the briefing they were getting from

secretary kerry. they were going to great detail, the secretary was very compelling. the reporting of chad program. here on c-span, we'll stay here live with a note that the house will be gaveling in before too long, once the briefing wraps up and the members return, they will begin debate on the coal ash disposal bill. a number of amendments will be considered as well. as the reporters here on the capitol visitors center wait, we'll wait too to see if there are any more comments from members after the iran briefing.

questioner: not sure if you made up your mind yet on deal, but i was wondering if you could tell us where you are and whether the briefing helped today. >> i'm still in the process of understanding a very complicated agreement and hearing from both sides. lots of sides on this. what happened today was i think kerry and the other secretaries gave a very, very strong defense of the deal. they're i think very deliberately and very smartly

asking that we look not at the deal in and of itself. you can always dream of a better deal. but look at where we were when iran was a nuclear threshold state before this negotiation began. mr. himes: and consider where the deal puts you in contrast to where we were. and then consider the question that frankly is very, very difficult to answer, which is, imagine not doing it, where does that put you? on those two fronts they're making a lot of headway, i think. questioner: do you sound convinced -- [inaudible] mr. himes: no, it's a very technical thing. look, if you're a representative, it's incumbent upon you to hear from everybody. i don't think any of us have heard from everybody yet. there's still a process to be undertaken. for my standpoint, the burden of proof, given what i've learned so far is on the opponents to explain why this is really a bad deal relative to where we were and why this is a bad deal relative to where we will be if the united states unilaterally walks away from it. questioner: one of your colleagues came out here and

expressed concerns over what he said are side deals that iran cut with the iaea and that the kerry essentially, in the briefing, that he didn't have all the information on those. is that a concern for you? mr. himes: it may be a concern. but that's in fact the way the iaea does and has always operated. meaning they, to have the confidence of the member states and the n.p.t., agrees not to disclose everything publicly and in fact to negotiate on a bilateral basis. so, hey, would we like to know everything that they are doing? maybe so. but that of course is not and has never been the way they operate. thank you. >> four-term connecticut congressman jim himes, democrat, one of many members leaf leaving the briefing room. they've been hearing from the secretary of state john kerry and ernest moniz on the iran nuclear deal which was approved

by the united nations security council the other day unanimously, the congress now on a 60-day window, a 60-day clock for an up or down approval. any of that is not likely until after the august recess. our coverage plans tomorrow morning. the senate foreign relations committee will hear about the deal from the secretary of state, from the energy secretary, moniz, also and treasury secretary jack lew. look for our live coverage on c-span3, online at c-span.org and also on c-span radio.

>> we're live at the capitol visitors briefing room at the

visitors center where members of the house have been hearing from the secretary of state and the energy secretary about the iran nuclear deal. the hill writes about republican opposition to that deal saying that republicans have vowed to vote against the deal and many democrats remain on the fence. if the white house sales job stumbles out of the gay it could boost chances of congress overturning the deal. steve scalise predicted debate over the deal would continue through the august recess. that 60-day clock has started. any vote is not likely until after the august recess. the senate foreign relations committee will hear from the secretary of state tomorrow, 10:00 a.m. eastern. we'll have live coverage. and let you know, here on c-span, we expect the house to gavel back in before too long. once this meeting wraps up and they call the house back into session, they will pick up debate an hour of general debate on the bill dealing with coal-fired power plants, coal

ash from those power plants. an hour of general debate and amendments to be considered as well. the senate is also in session today. a number of different speeches, a number of which dealt with highway funding. went through the introduction yesterday of the six-year highway funding bill and the failure yesterday to move forward on that bill. but it looks like a vote is coming up shortly in the senate for that. you can follow that over on c-span2.

>> here on c-span, live at the capitol, along with number of capitol hill reporters there they're waiting, it's a big part of the job, when these briefings let out, they're waiting to hear present its comm members of the house who have been briefed on the iran nuclear agreement by secretary of state kerry and energy secretary ernest moniz. we'll continue to get comments from members as they come and show those to you later in our schedule. we did want to show you the comments of the attorney general, loretta lynch announcing the indictment today, 33 federal charges against dylan roof in the shootings in charleston. a department of justice briefing that just wrapped up a few minutes ago. >> good afternoon, everyone. and thank you for coming. i am joined here today by the head of the department's civil rights division, and deputy

director of the f.b.i. ms. lynch: we are here today to announce that a federal grand jury in south carolina has returned a 33-count indictment against dylan storm roof, charging him with federal hate crimes and firearms charges for killing and attempting to kill african-american parishioners at emmanuel methodist episcopal church in charleston, south carolina, because of their race and in order to interfere with their exercise of their religion. as set forth in the indictment, several months prior to the tragic events of june 17, roof conceived of his goal of increasing racial tensions throughout the nation and seeking retribution for perceived wrongs that he believed african-americans had committed against white people. to carry out these twin goals of fanning racial flames and exacting revenge, roof further decided to seek out and murder

african-americans because of their race. an essential element of his plan, however, was to find his victims inside of a church. specifically an african-american church. to ensure the greatest notoriety and attention to his actions. as alleged, roof set out the evening of june 17, 2015 to carry out this plan. and drove to the emmanuel african methodist church in south carolina known as mother emmanuel. mother emmanuel was his destination, specifically because it was an historically african-american church, of significant to the people of charleston, of south carolina, and to the nation. on that summer evening, dylan roof found his targets. african-americans engaged in worship. met with welcome by the ministers of the church and his parishioners, he joined them in their bible study group. the parishioners had bibles. dylan roof had his 45-calendar glock pistol and eight

magazines loaded with hollow point bullets. and as set forth in the indictment, while the parishioners of mother emmanuel were engaged in religious worship and bible study, dylan roof drew his pistol and opened fire on them, ultimately killing nine church members. as you know, the state of south carolina is also prosecuting roof for the murders attempted murders and firearms offenses that he's alleged to have committed. we commend the south carolina state authorities for their tremendous work and their quick response. it is important to note, however, that south carolina does not have a hate crimes statute and as a result the state charges do not reflect the alleged hate crimes offenses presented in the federal indictment returned today. specifically the federal indictment returned today charges roof with nine murders and three attempted murders under the matthew shepherd and james bird hate crimes prevention act.

this federal hate crimes law prohibits using a dangerous weapon to cause bodily injury or attempting to do so on the basis of race or color. the shepherd-bird act was enacted specifically to vindicate the unique harms caused by racially motivated violence. roof is also charged with nine murders and three attempted murders under a second federal hate crimes statute that prohibits the use or threat of force to obstruct any persons free exercise of their religious beliefs. finally, roof has been federally charged with multiple counts of using a firearm in the commission of these racially motivated murders and attempted murders. for these crimes, roof faces federal penalties up to life imprisonment or the death penalty. i know that -- note that no decision has been made on whether to seek the death penalty in this case. the department will follow our usually rigorous protocol to thoroughly consider all the factual and legal issues relevant to that decision

which will necessarily involve counsel for the defendant roof. in addition, consultation with the victims' families is an important and vital part of this decision making process. and no decision will be made prior to conferring with them. the family members of those killed and the survivors were informed of these federal charges earlier today. i would also note that this indictment contains allegations, is not evidence of the defendant's guilty. now, as you will recall -- guilt. now, as will you recall this indictment follows an announcement that i made on june 18 of 2015, that the department of justice was conducting a hate crimes investigation into the shooting at the church. immediately following that shooting, the experienced prosecutors from the u.s. attorney's office in south carolina along with experienced attorneys from our civil rights division began working closely with the f.b.i., a.t.f., state and local law enforcement officials, including the south carolina law enforcement

division or sled. the charleston police and the soliciter's office for the ninth circuit of south carolina in thoroughly investigating these crimes. i would like to thank the many state and federal, local law enforcement officials for their dedication, for their hard work to ensure that this investigation was conducted thoroughly and expeditiously. i would also like to thank south carolina u.s. attorney bill nettles for his and his office's tremendous efforts on this case. as well as the dedicated attorneys from the department's civil rights division. in particular, i'd also like to extend my thanks to charleston solicitor scarlet wilson, for being a cooperative and effective partner in this matter. we have a strong working relationship with solicitor wilson and her office and we look forward to our continued collaboration as these parallel state and federal prosecutions work their way through their representative court systems. thank you for your attention. any questions? questioner: who will go first,

south carolina or the federal government? ms. lynch: that hasn't been determined yet. we're working cooperatively with solicitor wilson. both cases will proceed through the court system. we'll both work however to reduce any unnecessary burden to the families. questioner: what factors go into that kind of decision? deciding who goes first? besides burden on the families. ms. lynch: there are any number of fact rts. -- factors. we'll see how the judges are reviewing the case, state of motion practice. both are in early stages and have yet to have motions. at this point it's difficult to say how that will impact on the schedule. questioner: the definition of domestic terrorism were domestic terrorism charges considered in this case? can you elaborate on that? ms. lynch: there is no specific domestic terrorism statute. however, hate crimes, as i've stated before, are the original domestic terrorism. and we feel that the behavior

that is alleged to have occurred here is arc typal behavior that fits the federal hate crime statutes and vindicates their purpose. we have here a defendant who was alleged to have harbored discriminatory views toward african-americans, to have sought out an african-american house of worship, one that was particularly noted because of its age and significance, and he also sought out african-american parishioners at worship. implicating several hate crime statutes. we that i that this is exactly the type of case that the federal hate crimes statutes were in fact con received of to cover. racially motivated violence such as this is the original domestic terrorism. questioner: 2015, if you look at the essence of the case brought forth in the indictment, the fact that these people are dead today because of their race, that's primarily what you alleged in the indictment, could you speak to where we stand and what that says, that this still exists? ms. lynch: i think that this is

obviously a tragic situation. this is obviously a troubling situation. as the allegations and the entitlement reflect the mindset of this young man and his specific purpose to target individuals for death because of their race. but also to target individuals for death who are engaged in religious worship as well. so i think that we have to remain vigilant about these matters. we certainly at this point don't know much more about the defendant. the investigation is ongoing into a host of matters including those motivations. but i think that the message that should be clear to this is that the federal government and our state partners are committed to investigating these matters fully and thoroughly and where we have racially motivated violence committed to acting. questioner: it says in the indictment that he targeted the church specifically because of -- it was a historically african-american church, of significance to people of charleston south carolina, and the nation.

how do you know, how do you know that's why he chose that church? as opposed to any african-american church how do you know it was the nationality significance of the church? ms. lynch: i'm not going to comment specifically on the evidence that will come forth in a trial except to note that we believe that the evidence will support the allegation that roof chose that church because it was an old church, historic church and that it was historically significant as one of the oldest african-american churches not just in south carolina but in the nation. and that he was looking for the type of church and the type of parishioners whose death would in fact draw great notoriety for his religious views. i'm sorry, his racist views, i should say. questioner: i know in your remarks you used language because of. i'm wondering, as you present a case like this to what extent must all other factors be precluded such as mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction, if a defense lawyer gets up and says he hates

everyone in the world, he hates his mothers, he hates gays, tomorrow he's going to kill many more people who weren't black, what impact does that have? ms. lynch: well, hopefully we would not be receiving information like that, although we would certainly act on it if we did. wherever you have the possibility of multiple motivations, you also have the possibility of multiple charges. as you will note, the charges here specifically allege racially motivated violence in the murder and attempted murder of the victims of the church. but also the federal hate crimes statute that prohibits using violence to essentially prevent anyone from exercising their religion. that's not tied to race. that's tied to the exercise of religion. so we see here for example activity that supports allegations of more than one intent. now, with respect to issues that you raise about the defendant's state of mind, of course all of that will be taken into consideration as this case goes forward. i'm not able to speculate now as to what impact any other

factors would have on the case. questioner: you suggested that this was a seven-month plan. can you elaborate a little bit about how detailed this plan was, whether he made trips to the church prior to that night june 17? how elaborate was the plan? ms. lynch: thank you for the question. i'm not able to go into how many months he was planning. it was several months prior to the june 17 ins debit. i'm not able to go into -- incident. i'm not able to go into the evidence right now that would show his actions surrounding that at this point. questioner: should there be a federal domestic terrorism law? because for your average person who sees the way people in law enforcement talk about different types of killings with different wordses, what distinction should they make

when they hear talk about a shooting in chattanooga as terrorism but a shooting here as hate crime? does it matter and should there be a domestic terrorism law? ms. lynch glfpblg as to what laws should or should not come out as a result of this investigation, i'm not going to speculate at this point in time. as to the nature of the case, though i think you touch on the issue that people may feel that because we have such a strong emphasis on terrorism matters, since 9/11, that when we talk about matters and don't use that terminology, that somehow we don't consider those crimes as serious. and i want to be clear. nothing could be further from the truth than that. this type of crime in particular racially motivated violence, for which a federal law was specifically enacted to cover, is of grave importance to the federal government. we have devoted considerable resources from the beginning of this case to make sure that this interest was explored and that if in fact the evidence

supported it, that the allegations were brought. because this is in fact the arc type of the original domestic terrorism. i think sometimes people do focus on the terminology because as i've mentioned, since 9/11 there has been a great focus on that type of case. but it should no in -- in no way, in absolutely no way signify that this particular murder or any federal crime is of any lesser significance. questioner: how will you determine whether or not he is a candidate for the death penalty? ms. lynch: the department of justice has a process by which we consider death-eligible defendants in determining whether or not to seek that penalty. it is a very detailed and thorough review process, it involves submissions from defense counsel, it involves consultation with the victims' families and it involves a review of all the various factors that we would utilize to seek the death penalty to determine whether or not we feel that we could prevail on those factors at a trial.

. ultimately, after this review process, both at the u.s. attorney's office level -- >> we leave this here as the house gavels back in. they begin work on the ole ash disposal bill which the house opposes. have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 1734. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 369 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1734. the chair appoints the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1734, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill 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 bill is considered read the first -- the chair: the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, and a member opposed will control the time. mr. shimkus: e.p.a. put out its final rule for coal ash. we applaud e.p.a.'s decision to regulate coach ash under subtitle d confirming what we have been saying all along that morning coal ash is not hazardous. all you have to do is talk to the coal ash recyclers across the country, they'll tell you not only is coal ash not hazardous, it is an essential component in their product. however, the rule remains seriously flawed and

implementation will result in confusion, conflict and a lot of needless litigation. a fundamental flaw with the rule is that it is self-implementing, which means that now e.p.a. has finalized the rule going forward there will be zero regulatory oversight of the coal ash by the e.p.a. what this means is all these the rules will be interpreted and implemented by the utilities with no oversight or enforcement by the e.p.a. or the state this leads us to one of the other key flaws with the final rule which is that it is enforceable only through citizen suits. think about that the final rule sets out a complex set of technical requirements for coal ash but interpreting what they mean and how to implement them is left entirely to the regulated community with citizen lawsuits in federal courts as the only mechanism for enforcement. this will result in an

unpredictable array of regulatory interpretation as judges throughout the country are forced to make technical compliance decisions that are better left to a regulatory agency. you should current law, state permit programs will not operate in lieu of the final rule so even if states adopt the final rule, regulated ebtities must comply with the requirements in the federal rule and their state. this means even if a utility was in full compliance with the state coal ash permit they could and would be sued for noncompliance with the federal rule. the western governors' association said it best in a letter to house and senate leadership on may 15 of this year, and i quote, unfortunately e.p.a.'s final rule produces an unintended regulatory consequence in that it creates a dual federal and state regulatory system. this is because e.p.a. is not allowed under rcra subtitle d to delegate to c.c.r. programs to states in lieu of a federal program. it does not require facilities

to obtain permit, does not require states to implement or maintain new rules and cannot be enforced by the e.p.a. the only compliance mechanism is for a state or citizen group to bring a citizen suit under rcra 7002. this approach marginalizes the role of states in oversight and enforcement. this brings us to today. in need of a legislative solution to address these flaws. h.r. 754 is this solution. it fixes these problems by establishing enforceable permit programs that directly incorporate the technical requirements of the final rule. the bill will ensure that every state has a coal ash permit program. that every permit program will contain all the minimum federal standards or something more stringent and that the technical requirements of. p.a.'s final rule are

implemented with direct regular rah loir -- regulatory oversight an enforcement. it requires owners and operators to take action such as preparing a fugitive dust control pan and conducting inspections within eight months of the date of enactment which makes compliance with these and other requirements directly in line with the tame frime for compliance under the final rule. notably, h.r. 1734 also requires owners and operators to begin groundwater monitoring within 36 months from the date of enactment with state and environmental agencies immediately ensuring compliance rather than having to wait for the courts. it treats inactive services in exactly the same manner as the final rule. applies all of the location prestrixes from the final rule to the new surface and expansions for existing ones and will ensure that all information including information associated with the issuance of permits, ground water monitoring data

emergency action plan, fugitive dust control plans information regarding corrective action remedies and certifications regarding closure to be made available on the internet and h.r. 1734 expressly protects the ability to file citizen suits under rcra while ensuring parties to a lawsuit demonstrate actual harm from the coal ash and not just that a utility allegedly violated the requirement of the rule system of some say that the bill goes, i quote, goes too far because it allows states to exercise flexibility and make a site-specific risk-based decision. others say the bill is a giveaway to the utilities or that allowing the statings to exercise the same flexibility available under o'rcra permit programs weakens the requirement of the final rule. to that we say h.r. 1734 simply gives the states the same authority to implement coal ash permit program they have for other rcra subtitle d and even subtitle c permit

programs. we trust the states are in the best position to analyze local conditions and make risk-based permit decisions. we also know e.p.a. trusts that the states, because e.p.a. relies on the state fers. mentation on enforcement of rcra. and as we have heard before, from the environmental council of states and the association of state solid waste management officials and from states themselves they welcome the new min many, many -- minimum federal requirement, are up to the task of regulating coal ash and strongly support h.r. 1734. in addition, h.r. 1734 enjoys supports from a variety of groups incruding the edison institute rural electric co-ops the western govern years association, american coal ash association and the u.s. exame behr -- chamber of commerce. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves the balance

of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognize fed -- recognized. mr. pallone: i oppose this measure. it is unnecessary and dangerous legislation the administration opposes the bill and if it somehow passes congress, it will be veto the bill is also opposed by over 180 environmental, public health, and civil rights groups, including the sierra club, the league of conservation voters, the naacp, the nrdc, and earth justice. they oppose the legislation because it would block e.p.a.'s final coal ash rule and roll back important protections for human health and the environment. e.p.a.'s rule has put these protections in place after years of hard work and public process. transparency requirements, groundwater protection standards, cleanup requirements location

restrictions liner requirements, all will protect human health and the environment and these requirements are long overdue. we have known for years that unsafe coal ash disposal threatens groundwater drinking water and air quality. can tom -- contaminants can leach into groundwater supplies or become toxic dust. aging containment structures can fail. contamination can pose serious and widespread health risks. just last year a spill in north carolina affected drinking water systems in virginia. in 2005 a smaller spill in pennsylvania affected drinking water systems in my home state of new jersey. unfortunately these incidents are not uncommon. pemplet p.a. has identified 157 damage cases from coal ash contamination. if e.p.a.'s rule is delayed or undermined that number will leekly continue to grow. at the same time, mr. chairman,

the e.p.a.'s rule enincludes many important protections. it is also balanced and responsive to industry concerns. when e.p.a. solicitted comments on the proposed rule they heard from coal ash recyclers that they wanted a subtitle d nonhazardous rule and that's what e.p.a. finalized. those in the electric utility industry wanted a subtitle d rule that would not require them to retrofit their existing impoundments with liners. that's what e.p.a. finalized. states wanted a mechanism to set up their own programs to implement federal stan dands and have e.p.a. approve they will. e.p.a. provided that as well. e.p.a.'s balanced rules has addressed past concerns that -- past concerns that e.p.a. might regulate coal ash as hazardous no longer have merit because e.p.a. finalized a nonhazardous

rule and has no plans to reverse directions. past contentions that they need prod texts to protect public health no longer have merit because the e.p.a. has confidence the rule will be effective and protect i. and other concerns have been addressed because: p.a. established meck anymores to ere-view state programs enforcing state rules. the bot lomb line is that legislation is not warranted and even if it were, this bill would not be the vehicle because it dangerously eliminates or undermines necessary protections. a number of amendments were to be filed to proserve some of the important requirements in e.p.a.'s final rule and i understand that some of these may be accepted. but i want to stress that these amendments highlight only a subseth of the problems with this bill. even if they were all -- even if all the amendments were adopted, the bill would still be unnecessary and a dangerous precedent for public health. so i urge everyone to oppose the bill, mr. chairman and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

new jersey reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from west virginia, a real fighter for coal in the country, mr. mckinley. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckinley: thank you mr. chairman. for 35 years, congress has wrestled with how to deal with coal ash. an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal. every day, coal ash is produced in more than 500 coal fire plants in 49 states spread across 207 congressional districts. each one of those dots represents where every day in america, coal ash is being produced. this issue is not a state issue. this is a national issue that needs to be addressed. over 140 million tons of coal ash are produced annually in each one of those red dots. i recently received a letter of support from the pulp and paper

industry which recycles fly ash and employs nearly 900,000 people in 47 states. their comment, they want to see this bill passed because, quote, the e.p.a.'s proposed regulation provides a complicated approach to enforcing the regulation and this bill provides clarity and certainty. last year, in december, the e.p.a. issued its regulation. indeed they did, on fly ash. and to its credit the e.p.a. addressed one of the more immediate concerns and opted, however, just for now to regulate coal ash as a nonhazardous waste. so the question legitimately needs to be raised and has been, why is this legislation needed? two issues. first, the nonhazardous designation is not permanent. secondly, the only oversight reckism in is -- only oversight mechanism is the rule and

lawsuits. let's be more specific. the -- first, the nonhazardous designation is nearly a-- is applicable only as long as the rule is not modified. even in the preamble, e.p.a. says it could reverse its decision. more specifically from the statute, or the rule it says quote, the e.p.a. is deferring its final decision because of regulatory uncertainties that cannot be resolved at this time. this this uncertainty could be devastating to recyclers. the science is settled on fly ash and it should trump political and ideological interference. are we living in a nation of rules and regulation, or are we living in a nation of laws? this bill ensures that the e.p.a. will not be able to retroactively reverse its

original decision. but secondly and equally and maybe more so important is the rule this omission of specificity and the lack of state or federal oversight of coal ash disposal. remember what i just said, the lack of state or federal oversight that's provided in the rule. the way the rule is currently written, oversight will occur only through lawsuits, not through regulators. the bill however, addresses the regulatory uncertainty by guaranteeing that every state will have a coal ash permit program in concert with the e.p.a. but with state oversight that every program will meet the standards set forth under the proposed e.p.a. rule. nothing in the rule was omitted in the legislation. rather, the bill modifies the rule to allow states the

flexibility to implement an adequate, sufficient and successful coal ash permit program. it simply ensures that the lawsuits are not the only regulatory component. let me give you an example how the language within the rule could be a problem. the rule states, quote, the owner or operator of a c.c.r. unit must install a sufficient number of wells to yield groundwater samples. mr. chairman, what's -- who defines what sufficient is? one utility in one state may say it's 10 wells. no another state it may be 20 or 30. under this rule, the decision will be handled by a federal judge rather than a state environmental agency. that's what we corrected with this bill. this is not the fly ash bill from 30 years ago. we have worked with the e.p.a. in developing this legislation.

perhaps, mr. chairman, the administration hasn't read the bill, because the bill, one, codifies the rule. doesn't limit anything. it codifies the rule and removes -- secondly, it removes the uncertainty with the regulatory designation. three, it enhances oversight. and fourthly, it requires everything state they have a coal ash program. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. mckinley: in so doing in providing for the coal ash program, we finally will have a national system for oversight of dams. think about that. we haven't that up to this point. that's what caused the problem in the first place was lack of dam safety. secondly, we're going to have enhanced water quality. we're going to have improved environmental -- this will go into effect this year.

without this legislative action, regulatory uncertainty will swirl around the coal ash will continue, as it has for 35 years. it's imperative we pass this bill today and continue to move forward. the clock is ticking, and the time is now to finally put this issue behind us. i encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle put this issue to rest. we've come to a compromise with the e.p.a. the administration needs to come onboard finally. i yield back my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: the gentleman from west virginia seems to suggest that this legislation will improve enforcement of e.p.a.'s important coal ash standards, and if that were true, the public interest groups that have fought for strong standards for years would support it. democratic members that conduct strong oversight of coal ash in the rulemaking process would

also support it, and the e.p.a. which has worked for decades to establish effective protective requirements, would support it. but those environmental groups and public health groups strongly oppose this bill, and i strongly oppose this bill and the administration strongly opposes the bill and that's because this bill is not needed to ensure effective enforcement of e.p.a.'s coal ash rule and it won't have that effect. you may hear that e.p.a.'s rule will only be enforced through citizen suits and that's not true. while they will continue to be an important component of all environmental enforcements, states will play an important part in enforcing e.p.a.'s final coal ash rule. they will do so either by bringing citizen suits themselves or by incorporating the requirements of e.p.a.'s rule into their state programs. states want to take on this role. they told the e.p.a. as much on comments in the coal ash rule. in response to those requests, e.p.a. established a mechanism to review and approve states

programs implementing these requirements. e.p.a. expects the states to make use of this mechanism and implement the rule's requirements through approved programs. so the claim that enforcement will depend exclusively on citizen suits should not be believed. you may also or you have also heard also from the chairman of the subcommittee that e.p.a.'s rule will be plagued by dual enforcement. this is opposite of the claim that it will made by citizen suits but is often made by the same parties and this claim is also untrue. the mechanism e.p.a. set up in the rule will allow states to get approval for their programs, meaning e.p.a. will make clear they have reviewed the state program and found that it's at least as stringent as the federal requirements. in other words, e.p.a. will make clear that a facility complying with the state program is without question also complying with the federal requirements. citizen suits are highly unlikely to bring groups against facilities in compliance and if they were to do so such suits would not go very far. so, mr. chairman, contrary to the claim that judges would be

interpreting the requirements differently left and right, federal judges would defer to e.p.a.'s expert evaluation and efficiency of state programs, and these enforcement concerns are not the real motivation for this bill. as i said, this is about improving compliance and enforcements, it would have widespread support. instead, this bill is about undermining important health and environmental protections and that is why it faces widespread opposition. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. i now yield two minutes to my colleague, next door neighbor mr. bucshon from southwestern indiana. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. bucshon: i rise in support of h.r. 1734, the mr. cole: -- the improving coal combustion residuals regulation act of 2015. it would have direct impact on the residents of the eighth districts because indiana has more coal ash ponds that i any

state. i was concerned that e.p.a.'s rule lacked clarity and did not adequately address enforcement of the federal minimum standards for public health and safety. h.r. 1734 fixes this by giving states like indiana, the authority to implement coal ash rules in a way that protects the environment, public health and good-paying jobs rather than totally deferring to bureaucrats in washington, d.c. this legislation also reconfirms that recycling this nonhazardous material helps keep utility costs low, provides for low-cost durable construction materials and reduces waste. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yield it's back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, under the proven model of environmental regulation, congress sets the standard of

protection that states programs must meet. e.p.a. interprets that standard through rules or guidance, so states know what they must do to achieve that level of protection. states can demonstrate to e.p.a. that they have in place programs adequate to provide the minimum level of protection required, and e.p.a. retains backstop enforcement authority to ensure that state programs are enforced. but this bill, mr. chairman, fails on each of these points. unlike e.p.a.'s rule, it does not contain any minimum federal requirement to protect health and the environment. it undermines the minimum national safeguards in e.p.a.'s rule by introducing significant discretion and it fails to establish federal backstop authority. and finally, it fails to define what facilities the bill covers instead of giving states discretion to define the scope of their programs. so this proposal will not ensure the safe disposal of coal ash, protect groundwater or prevent dangerous air pollution, and it certainly isn't going to prevent another catastrophic failure, like the

one we saw in kingston, tennessee. so i continue to oppose the legislation just as the administration does and just as environmental groups and public health groups do. i urge all of my colleagues to do the same, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. before i yield to my colleague from west virginia, i would just like to mention that when i mentioned the -- the municipal solid waste law we're doing the same thing that we do to ricra. state implement by the state e.p.a. it's the same thing. all we're doing is codifying that which means putting these rules and regulations in statute, in law. so it can't be changed. now i'd like to yield two minutes to my colleague, another colleague from west virginia, mr. jenkins. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. jenkins: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, congressman mckinley, for all of your hard work on this very important issue. i rise to offer my strong

support for this legislation. this bipartisan -- bipartisan bill will provide certainty for more than 300,000 workers around our country, including thousands of coal miners in my state of west virginia, in southern west virginia in particular. the recycling of coal ash material helps keep america's energy costs low. it helps to produce construction supplies that industries across our nation rely on such as materials for concrete and roofing. the e.p.a.'s final rule did not address a number of issues, including state permitting requirements and oversight. this bill puts the states in charge. it gives our states the enforcement authority to implement standards for the safe disposal of coal ash. our state and local officials know better than washington bureaucrats how to address the

regulatory requirements of the rule. i urge passage of this bill, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: as someone who cares about beneficial reuse and wants to see the beneficial reuse industry flourish, i'm listening to this debate and one might think we're facing a stark choice. either vote for this bill or coal ash recycling will stop, but that's not the choice that we face. when e.p.a. issued its final coal ash rule, they finalized a nonhazardous regulation exactly what the coal ash recycling industry sought and the rule explicitly protects beneficial reuse. many members of congress sent letters and smilted comments to e.p.a. on the -- submitted comments to e.p.a. on the rule. and this bill, on the other

hand the decision between hazardous and nonhazardous would move to the state levels which means they could be hazardous in some states and then not in others. how will it create the certainty they crave? even worse, this bill would eliminate important protection on e.p.a.'s final rule meaning the number of damaged cases is likely to continue to grow and that will really create a stigma around these materials. so if we leave these ash ponds in place and another one fails, what will happen to the beneficial reuse industry? the way to ensure a strong beneficial reuse industry is to ensure consistent regulation and safe disposal of c.c.r. by allowing the e.p.a. rule to be implemented. and so again, that's why i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule if they really want to see the beneficial reuse industry flourish. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. before i yield to my colleague from north dakota, let me just respond in that in the final

rule they didn't close the door to regulating coal ash as toxic. they can reregulate. they can promulgate a new regulation and then cause it toxic. so then you have the fly ash in the concrete in the school and the school has to get torn down because it's got fly ash in it? it makes no sense. so that's why we need to codify the science, which the e.p.a. twice, now three times said coal ash is not toxic. i yield two minutes to my colleague from north dakota, mr. cramer. the chair: the gentleman from north dakota is recognized for two minutes. mr. cramer: thank you for yielding the time. i appreciate you clarifying the statements just made from the other side. i think we all have the same goal, but the lack of certainty -- when you put in the rule that for today we're going to -- we're not going to determine -- determine it hazardous but we leave the thing open-ended just in case we change our mind, that's uncertainty.

that's what we're talking about. i come from a state north dakota, for nearly 10 years i was a coal regulator. i regulated coal mining among utilities, thank you very much. appreciate the fact that we were able to mine our coal, burn it at the mine mill, generate some of the lowest cost electricity in the country largely because we were able to use the coal ash as a beneficial use for lots of things, including, by the way, putting in the foundations of wind turbines. we didn't need the federal government. we've been doing this since the 1970's. we didn't need the e.p.a. as you overreach to teach us how to do it. coal ash disposal has been debated for decades. for decades. fortunately for those of us in north dakota, we've done pretty well with it. we've had modern facilities and modern standards. our state regulators at the state department, along with the public service commission working with industry -- and i stress working with industry -- to develop these standards and practices that have worked for all these decades really don't need further imposition of the

federal government and certainly not the e.p.a. all of our regulations are tailored to our coal ash, our geography this approach may not be perfect but it's better than the e.p.a.'s proposal which leaves too many opportunities for extreme environmentalists to meddle, to use the courts, to come in place throughout the years and impose much more extreme regulations. with that, i again thank you for your leadership, thanks to the gentleman for introducing the bill and i yield back any time i might add. the chair: the gentleman yields back any time he might have. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from new york. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. chairman.

once again the house is considering a bill to set standards for coal disposal. unfortunately, it does not contain standards that will prevent problems from poor disposal practices that have plagued communities across the country for far too long. h.r. 1734 largely maintains the status quo a system that's operated by the states with no uniform federal standards. and the status quo isn't good enough. in the 35 years since congress passed the resource recovery ry and use act or rcra, we have been studying coal ashs by dist posal. communities in many states have experienced serious problems relating to improper disposal of coal ash. spills resulting from coal ash impediment failures -- impoundment fail yurks rather, have polluted water supply, destroyed preist and public property and resulted in elect

thi and expensive cleanup efforts. action on this issue is listening overdue. last december, the environmental protection agency finalized the rule to strengthen the regulations on the disposal of coal ash they feel final wall was published in april. the rule was in development for manier years. it is the result of an extensive public process. the agency sorted through other 450,000 public -- public submitted statements during the comment period on this rule and held eight public hearings in communities across the country. e.p.a.'s rule is responsive to industry concerns that officially clarify coal ash as hazardous waste would harm recycling efforts that use coal ash in new material and products and it is responsive to concerns of public health and environmental advocates. for the first time, the rule

establishing minimum federal standards that all coal ash disposal facilities must meet. h.r. 1734 does not do that. h.r. 1734 enables state tots do what some are doing now, that is to allow continued operation of these facilities without sufficient safeguards. h.r. 1734 isn't about providing flexibility in achieving better standards. h.r. 1734 allows states to weaken a standard if facilities can't meet them. the standards set by the rule provides a guaranteed floor of protection for all communities. and what are these? well, location restrictions. new or expanded areas of existing coal ash facilities must be cited with consideration and defined buffers with respect to aquifers, wetlands, impact zones and unstable areas. liner design criteria are

included to prevent leaching. they are to include gee quo membrane and a compacted soil can be met with an alternative design if the alternative would provide equivalent or better performance. structural integrity performance are design -- defined in the rules to prevent structural failures such as the one that occurred in tennessee in 2008 a failure that caused tremendous damage when an impoundment failed. operating criteria are included in the rule to prevent runoff and windblown dust, require periodic inspection and capacity limits among other things. advocates for h.r. 1734 have expressed concerns about the enforcement of e.p.a.'s coal ash rule. h.r. 1734 is offered as a remedy to this problem there is no problem. the rule will be enforced by the states through their own authorities to operate their solid waste management programs. i think that's what h.r. 1734

envisions. the rule will also be enforced through citizen suits and by the way, states sometimes bring these suits against private parties on behalf of their citizens. listening to the majority criticize an e.p.a. regular leags because of its weak e.p.a. enforcement provisions is indeed unusual. and it is certainly not a complaint the agency hears very often. the coal ash rule represents a compromise amongst the stake holders in this issue. h.r. 1734 simply does not. it is not surprising there are those who are unhappy with certain provisions of this rule. h.r. 1734 is on the floor today at the urging of some of those stake holders. of course the rule from either vantage point is not perfect. given the differing opinions on the role of federal regulation of coal ash disposal and the nature of the standards that should apply to these facilities excuse me it is not too surprising. but i do believe this legislation, in fact, any

legislation is premature. changes in regulation are in -- or in law take a long time and hitting the restart button now will only lead to continued uncertainty and continued risk. we have had far too much of these already. i believe the rule should move forward. h.r. 1734 would prevent that happening. we have had 35 years of weak protection and it has cost us a great deal. it is time for ta more rigorous and stringent approach that prevents spills, water pollution and air pollution and ex-poi sure to toxic substances. it is time to put people's safety first. we should not discard the approach taken in e.p.a.'s rule before it has been implemented or evaluated. e.p.a.'s rule emerge through the an extensive public engagement process and as a result of years of working invested by the interested parties and the agency. the coal ash disposal rule

should be implemented an given a fair chance to work. if it does not, we certainly retain the option of moving legislation forward. h.r. 1734 is unnecessary. h.r. 1734 offers far weaker protections than those of e.p.a.'s final rule. so i oppose this bill, i urge my colleagues to do the same and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: can i ask how much time is left? the chair: the gentleman from illinois has 12 1/2 minutes remain, the gentleman from new jersey has 14 minutes remaining. mr. shimkus: i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mooney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mooney: thank you, mr. chairman. our coal industry is suffering in west virginia because president obama's regulations are artificially drive do you think demand for reliable and affordable coal. with power plants closing and

home energy prices rising, our miners are suffering and jobs are being cut due to this administration's continuous overreach and interference. that's why representative david mckinley's bill the improving coal combustion residuals regulation act of 2015, is so important to our communities in west virginia. i'm a proud original co-sponsor. i strongly support this legislation because it allows states to adopt and implement their own coal ash permitting systems as long as they meet basic federal standards. the states, along with their local communities and hardworking coal miners know best how to implement coal ash regulations and will ensure that water quality and the environment are protected. being able to recycle coal ash means we can turn our spent

coal into useful products. like drywall and concrete. this means more mining jobs and a healthier economy for west virginia and all of america. i urge my colleagues to join us in voting for h.r. 1734, the improving coal combustion residuals act of 2015. thank you and i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: again, major reasons why so many members on my side of the aisle oppose this bill is because of our concern that coal ash is in fact toxic. and i just wavent to focus for a few moments on the reasons this issue is so important to many members. the significant health risks posed by the toxic constituents

in coal ash. coal ash contains arsenic, antimon, barium beryllium, chromium nickel, celine yum and thallium. those -- selenium and thallium. those materials are toxic and pose threats to people and the environment. we've heard it's in the toxic but the risk posed by these materials if not properly handled are real and significant. e.p.a. finalized the rules for coal ash but 9/11 that rule, the agency recognized the serious threat this is public health, say regular petedly that ash can lead to toxic metals at levels of concern. we now know of more than 150 documented damage cases from coal ash pollution. we saw what happened in kingston tennessee. we saw what happened in the dan river. we saw what happened in martin creek pennsylvania. the list goes on. some may try to dispute the empirical evidence, citing an

old laboratory test for leaching used in 2000. but that test is not state of the art and has not been for some time. in 1999, the e.p.a. was criticized forudesing that test, suggesting that a new test was necessary and the national academies in 2006 criticized the leaching test saying it was not representative, real world conditions and may greatly underestimate the leaching that occurs. e.p.a. recognized this in their final rule. i would caugs my colleagues against relying too heavily on that outdated test or even e.p.a.'s decision to regulate as nonhazardous. coal ash is dangerous. if it ends up in drinking water, ground water, or air it is toxic. that's why e.p.a.'s rule is so important and why this bill is so dangerous. so again, i urge my colleagues to vote no. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: before i yield to my colleague from florida, let

me respond. i am trying to figure out whether you all believe it's toxic or not toxic. and if you trust e.p.a., or you don't trust the e.p.a. because the e.p.a. ruled twice in 1993 and 2000 that it wasn't toxic. then they roll out the final rule which you all are defending and say it's not toxic. so if you go to the -- your debating point is really why we need the bill. because you are creating uncertainty in the recycleable and reuse people. what was just talked about should cause everyone who is in the recycleable and reuse industry to say, we were right. we need this bill. because it -- the e.p.a. -- 1993 and 2000, and the final rule, and that's one part of the reason why we need the bill is to close that loophole

because yeah, it is kind of ironic for me to be supporting the: p.a. but the e.p.a. said it's not toxic system of with that, i'd like to yield to my colleague from florida, mr. bilirakis, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bilirakis: thank you mr. speaker. thank you mr. chairman, i appreciate it very much. i rise in support of h.r. 1734, the improving coal combustion residuals regulation act. this congress' legislation will ensure that coal combustion products are safely regulated by empowering states to regulate it at fixed standards without overwhelming consumers' wallets. it also gives the e.p.a. the authority to act to protect the public should a state fail to implement its own regulations. coal come biston products have become a significant sector of the economy prorkviding jobs and environmental and safety benefits. the recycling of coal combustion products redeuces

greenhouse gas emissions extends the life and durability of the nation's roads and bridges, and reduces the amount that must be disposed of in land fills or surface impoundments. e.p.a. reverses -- if e.p.a. reverses its decision not to regulate coal ash as hazardous material, as they are considering, the cost to floridians could be astronomical because florida's law does not permit hazardous waste land fills. utilities would then be forced to export the ash to neighboring states. the result of which would be higher out of pocket energy costs for my constituents. we can't have that. . overregulating coal combustible products will only serve to hurt the environment and increase the costs to consumers. these are things we should be avoiding not promoting. this legislation will protect jobs and provide certainty to states utilities and

businesses that recycle coal combustible products. i urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: just in response to the chairman of the subcommittee, i just want to stress again that i don't think that you should rely on e.p.a.'s decision to regulate as nonhazardous, meaning that coal ash is considered nontoxic. the fact of the matter is that the e.p.a. has never said that it's not a toxic material, and they continue to say it's dangerous and if it ends up in drinking water, groundwater or air it is toxic. that is why -- and i'd like to take the time now, mr. chairman, to read from the s.a.p. or the statement of administration policy from the executive office of the president. their main concern in issuing

this statement of administrative policy is that the impact on public health and the environment. and i just would like to read it. the administration strongly opposes h.r. 1734 because it would undermine the protection of public health and the environment provided by the e.p.a.'s december, 2014 final rule addressing the risk posed by mismanaged impoundments of coal ash and other coal gusible residuals. the 2008 spill and the 2014 spill serve as stark reminders of the need for safe disposal and management of coal ash. e.p.a.'s rule articulates clear and consistent national standards to protect public health and the environment, provent contamination of drinking water and minimize the risk of catastrophic failure at coal ash surface impoundments. h.r. 1734 would however, substantially weaken these protections. for example, the bill would

eliminate restrictions on how close coal ash impoundments can be to drinking water resources. it would undermine e.p.a.'s requirement that impoundments must be closed or retrofitted with protected liners if they are leaking in contaminated drinking water. further, the bill would delay requirements in e.p.a.'s final c.c.r. rule, including structural integrity and closure requirements for which tailored extensions are already available through e.p.a.'s rule and through a -- approved solid waste management plans. while they support state program flexibility, h.r. 1734 would allow states to modify or waive critical protective requirements found in e.p.a.'s final c.c.r. rule. specifically h.r. 1734 authorizes the states to implement permit programs that would not meet a national minimum standard of protection and fails to provide e.p.a. with an opportunity to look at

states permits. because it would undercut important national protections provided by e.p.a.'s 2014 c.c.r. management and disposal rule, the administration strongly opposes h.r. 1734. if the president were presented with h.r. 1734 as before the house today his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. and, again, that's the end of the s.a.p. the administration's pop significance is primarily based on the concerns over public health -- opposition is primarily based on the concerns over public health. they are very concerned that this legislation would make it very possible for coal ash and to exic or residue to get -- toxic or residues to get into the environment whether it's through air, drinking water,

groundwater whatever, and that's our primary concern, mr. chairman. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: mr. chairman, i have no further speakers and i believe i have the right to close so i yield -- i would reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: may i ask how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. pallone: i won't use that much time but i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman what is coal ash and what risk does it pose? basically it's the waste from burning coal from power plants or industrial facilities and it contains high concentrations of toxic chemicals, as i said, mercury and it presents serious risks to human health and the environment. it can leak into groundwater or

drinking water supplies and become airborne as toxic dust. it can fail structurally, resulting in catastrophic toxic sludge. an examples these harms are new mexico raunsd well-documented. now, the e.p.a. addressed these risks and published a final rule governing coal ash disposal in the federal register in april after decades of work, orobust public process and consideration of over 450,000 public comments. it sets out minimum national criteria for the disposal of coal ash to ensure that no reasonable probability of adverse effects occur on health or the environment. and the rule explicitcally protects beneficial reuse or recycling of coal ash. now the g.o.p. are saying that their bill h.r. 1734, would merely codify e.p.a.'s rule. but that's simply not true. this bill would endanger human health and the environment by

eliminating or changing crucial requirements in e.p.a.'s rule. just some examples of protective requirements in the rule that would be eliminated by the bill -- requirements for existing surface impoundments. closure requirements. location restrictions. groundwater protection standards. cleanup requirements. transparency. the bill undermines transparency requirements in e.p.a.'s rule, including specific requirements are to make information publicly available online and it introduces new exceptions to publication requirements. and clearly this bill would delay important health protections. the e.p.a. rule requires coal ash disposal sites to quickly come into compliance with the rule's requirements with many requirements effective this october. the bill establishes much longer time frames for some requirements with full compliance not required until six to seven years after enactment. and even with the time frames in the bill are close to those in the rule they would be counted from the bill's date of

enactment leading to significant delays compared to the rule. there's no need for this legislation, mr. chairman. in the past some argued that legislation was needed to prevent e.p.a. from regulating coal ash as hazardous waste and to protect beneficial reuse. but e.p.a.'s final rule regulates coal ash as nonhazardous and specifically protects the beneficial reuse. some have also suggestsed that legislation is needed to prevent dual requirements but it includes state requirements specifically to address this concern. and who opposed h.r. 1734? well, again, the administration. i read the s.a.p. civil rights groups sierra club naacp. the list goes on. in north carolina, where a recent coal ash spill devastated the dan river, 25 state legislators signed a letter of opposition to this legislation . so, again, mr.

chairman, if you care about human health, if you care about the environment, if you want to make sure that coal ash disposal is not going to contaminate your groundwater, your air or your drinking water, you should vehemently oppose this legislation. i urge all my colleagues to do so and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. a couple things. first of all, drinking battery acid is toxic. badries are thrown in -- batteries are thrown into landfills. states comply with federal standards and enforce the protection of their citizens. that's all we're asking here. i'm glad you read the statement of administration policy. i have a letter from ecos.

so ecos is the environmental council of states, so it representing all 50 states. and the association of state and territorial solid waste management officials. so every government, local government official that manages waste in this country and our territories support this bill. they must think there is a reason. and i've got to believe that these local states are concerned about protecting their citizens. otherwise they wouldn't be elected. and california is an ecos. washington state's an ecos. in fact, the next letter we have is from the western governors association, and it was unanimous to support this bill. and that's our friend, the governor of washington state. used to be on the committee. to no one would say he's going

to threaten and endanger his citizens. so the states can do this. they have state e.p.a.'s. they want to -- let's have a certificate program using federal statutory guidelines so that we know the rules of the road and that's really all we're doing. h.r. 1734 is the best solution for everyone. it is a solution for the e.p.a. because protective technical requirements for coal ash will be implemented through enforceable permits, and they will have a far more significant oversight rule for coal ash than they would have under the rule. it is a solution for the states because they will be able to immediately develop permit programs and know exactly what the permit programs must contain. it's a solution for the regulated community because they will have the benefit of enforceable permits and regulatory oversight to help them interpret and implement the requirements. and it is a solution for the beneficial users because they

will have the certainty that coal ash will continue to be regulated as a nonhazardous waste. finally, i'd like to thank mr. mckinley for his long-standing relationship on this issue as we continue to figure out how to effectively regulate coal ash. i urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan solution to effectively and affirmatively regulate coal ash and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part c of house report 114-216. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report 114-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. shimkus: mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report 114-216 offered by mr. shimkus of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 369, the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, my amendment makes a technical and conforming change to the bill. let me explain. the final rule amends part 257 of title 40 of the code of the federal regulation. e.p.a. put out a prepublication on the final rule on december 19, 2014, meaning that it was public but not yet had be published in the federal register. h.r. 1734 directly incorporates requirements from e.p.a.'s final rule and so there are numerous citations in the bill to the code of federal

regulations because of the date of our full committee markup the final rule had not yet been published in the federal register and thus did not have the final citation in the final code of regulations. it was necessary to include the date of prepublication and include a paragraph regarding references to the code of federal regulations. the final rule was published in the federal register on april 17 2015, and as of that date citations to the final rule were appropriately cited as citations to 4 c.f.r. 257. my amendment will have it as a placeholder. i urge all my members to support this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does any member rise in opposition to the amendment? the question -- the gentleman from illinois is recognized to close. mr. shimkus: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the

amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 2, printed in house report 214-116. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: i would like to speak in favor of the amendment. i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 214-216, offered by mr. pallone of new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone and member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. pallone: i yield myself such time as i may consume in support of my amendment. mr. chairman, this bill is dangerous for human health and the environment in part because it deletes or undermines important protections in

e.p.a.'s final coal ash rule. location restrictions like a bar in disposing of coal ash directly in contact. the undermine requirements include groundwater requirements which they will be able to change as they see fit. design, maintenance requirements would be delayed. my amendment focuses on one of the shortcomings and illustrates the fundamental issues with this bill. e.p.a.'s rule establishes a strong national floor for public disclosure of information. the rules specifies what information will be made available to the public and how it must be posted. utilities will have to maintain pages on their websites that document their compliance with a wide range of criteria, including inspections and groundwater data. these will hold utilities

accountable. concerned citizens will have to navigate will have to found out if it is contaminating ground water and go to the utility website and see all monitoring results. e.p.a. testified before the energy and commerce committee that these transparency rerequirements will be strong deliferse of compliance. and the toxic release inventory is a great example. this bill would eliminate these requirements. there would be no national requirements to maintain a public website. my amendment would restore these important requirements in the e.p.a.'s final rule. why this bill does away with the important compliance tool when the proponents suggest that it will improve compliance and enforcement. this bill is not intended to increase compliance with the

important standards e.p.a. developed, but to allow the unsafe disposal of coal ash to continued. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment to address one of the many short comings in the bill. i don't expect this amendment to pass, but if it does, the underlying bill will be unnecessary and problematic, i will be urging a no vote on final passage and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. mr. shimkus: wish to speak in opposition to the amendment. i share my colleague's concern and i make sure that the public has access to all relevant information. so the state certification program would have state public access through the state e.p.a. and that's in this bill. so there is public access to

information. h.r. 1734 accomplishes the goal by making sure the public has access to information and guaranteeing that the public will be involved in the decision making process because it requires the permitting process and requires states to make available on the internet such information as all groundwater monitoring data and structural stability assessments and emergency action plans and emergency response plans, certifications of closures corrective action remedies. i would like to point out that assistant administrator for the office of solid waste indicated at our hearing that states making the information available on the internet was just as good as requiring owners and operators of disposing units putting it on their website. all that said the public would be better served having utilities create individual web sites where the same information

to be posted and i will work with him to improve the amendment to accomplish his goal of having individual utility websites and removing -- and make sure that they make the information available. i regret we were unable to come to an agreement and i'm willing to work with the gentleman as we move forward. i urge a no vote on his amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. pallone: mr. chairman i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed.

the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 3. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. castor: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part c of house report 114-216 offered by ms. castor of florida. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor and a member op -- opposed each will control five minutes. ms. castor: my amendment requires the owners of coal ash ponds to clean up pollution, some spills or disasters that involve their coal ash waste. the underlying bill did not

contain such a requirement. i know that is hard to believe in the face of the horrendous coal ash disasters of the past few years that my republican colleagues did not include such a requirement. my amendment reinstitutes the requirement for cleanup of these disasters. now the e.p.a. rule requires an owner or operator of coal ash waste to respond immediately to a spill or release whether through the air, water or soil. the rule requires the polluter to alert both the local authorities and the public and immediately prepare a cleanup plan. that's a fundamental concept of doing business, isn't it? yet the republican bill eliminates that requirement for owners and operators and would no longer have to be responsible for their pollution or disaster. that's a scary proposition. after the dan river duke energy

in north carolina and 140,000 tons of toxic wastewater and after the t.v.a. blowout that they say will cost over $1 billion to remediate that community. there are 600 coal waste disposals across the country and my home state of florida, there are over 42 coal ash pond at eight power plants 27 of which are online. and my local power provider has 11 coal ash ponds and one landfill and 6.1 million tons of coal ash are generated each year but florida doesn't regulate coal ash ponds. and that's similar to a lot of communities across the country, but we have learned the hard way that we need to have basic standards to prevent these types of disasters. the e.p.a. has identified 170

coal ash ponds and landfills that have contaminated groundwater or surface water that increase harm and risk to human health. these surface impoundments where coal ash is stored in ponds pose a threat and even a threat to loss of life if they fail. coal ash ponds are located in 33 states and 50 impoundments are considered high hazard meaning a hazard would cause loss of life. t.v.a. kingston fossil plant released 5.1 million cubic yards of coal ash creating a superfund site that could cost $1.2 billion. it created a wave of water and ash that destroyed three homes and disrupted electrical power

and ruptured a natgral gas line covered railways and roadways and evacuation of a nearby neighborhood. this changed the lives of farmers ranchers and family. it rushed down the valley covering 300 acres. the volume of ash and water was 100 times greater than the amount of oil spilled in the exxon valdez accident. this occurred at night while people slept. since 2008 we had three major coal ash disasters. in diss the t.v.a. disaster, the dan river plant spill in north carolina was absolutely horrendous. february 2014, a pipe burst beneath the impoundment sending coal ash flurry do the dan river spreading 70 miles downstream. the cost of cleaning up spills

has snowballed with six companies reporting liabilities that exceed $10 billion and we want to left them off the hook? i don't think so. we have to adopt my amend. without interaction to clean up within a reasonable time we are going to let folks off the hook. the risk is significant to public health to ignore. so mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to adopt the castor amendment. vote yes to restore to clean up releases of pollution caused by these coal ash ponds. i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. shimkus: i rise to speak in opposition although i do not oppose the amendment. i appreciate my colleague bringing this amendment up, i

wish we would have seen this in the markup of the full committee and committee because we could have inserted into the bill instead of an amendment on the floor. i understand your passion, i just wished through regular order we could have disposed of that. your amendment takes steps to conform to the e.p.a. rule with respect to cleanup requirements. the intent for the bill is to codify the e.p.a. rule. and so your amendment helps us do that. and we appreciate that. we agree with you it improves the protectiveness of state permit programs. the key thing about h.r. 1734, it creates state permit programs so the states have federal standards and have an enforceable program so they can enforce just like we do in solid waste. we have no objection to the amendment and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part crmp of house report 114-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part c of house report 114-216 offered by mr. connelly of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 3 9, the gentleman from virginia, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i want to thank the majority for including my amendment considered in the previous congress requiring

states to have a strong and comprehensive emergency response plan in the ent of a -- event of a spill or a leak. we cannot count on a private company to be prepared for a spill. the state and local governments who are the first responders, must be active partners. by requiring states to be prepared with their own emergency response plans, i think we are taking a modest step they are ensured to protect the communities. i acknowledge that and thank my colleagues. in that same spirit that modest safeguards that i offered this amendment that would require all inactive surface impoundments to put in place the same groundwater safeguards requiring the final federal rule. when we debated similar legislation in july of 2013, i spoke of the devastating 2008 failure of the coal ash impoundment in kingston,

tennessee. more than 5 million cubic yards of coal ash was released damaging and destroying homes and property resulting in 1.2 billion in cleanup costs. we must not forget the lasting health consequences as well, some of which are still unknown resulting from that incident. some residents will suffer from respiratory illnesses and other side effects. arsenic levels were measured at 80 times higher than the amount allowed under the safe drinking water act and the e.p.a. already has said such exposure significantly increases risk of cancer over time. . in my home state of vearks with a nashing coal ash pond spilled more than 39,000 tons of toxic ash and 24 million gallons of

waste water into the dan river. though much of the public immediate attention of the bill was focused on north carolina's regulatory shortcomings, virginians were also left exposed of that coal ash spill. it's estimated that only 2500 tons of ash were removed, leaving over 90% of the coal ash in virginia waters. as a result of this incident, virginia's department of environmental quality has proposed a $2.5 million settlement against duke energy carolinas. probably only a fraction of the ultimate coast of cleanup. what has happened to communities in north carolina, tennessee and virginia can happen to any one of our communities that have or are near coal ash impoundment ponds. today for example, across the commonwealth of virginia, there are more than 30 active and inactive ponds at 11 different sites, including one in my district with a an average of 47 years. as more of -- with an average

of 47 years. as we close down these surface impoundments, we need to make sure we're protecting our communities with proper postclosure procedures. one of the earliest protections our constituents can expect is that we maintain rigorous groundwater monitoring as these legacy ponds and inactive surface impoundments move toward postclosure status. however, i worry that as this bill is written and admittedly as the e.p.a. rule was finalized, a carveout has been made that threatens our communities. why is it that a site that closes under the rule guidelines must monitor the groundwater for 30 years but one that is rushed to meet the three-year deadline only has to more tore for a fraction of the time? -- monitor for a fraction of the time? buried in page 125 and 126 of the april 17 federal register, e.p.a. notes that it received few public comments on the proposed activities to conduct during the postclosure care.

these commentors were supportive of the activities and specifically urge the rule to require the monitoring of groundwater throughout the postclosure period. the agency received no comments opposing the proposed postclosure care activities. i'll remind my friends that more than 450,000 comments were provided in this rule. it isn't often we can all agree on something, but i think we can agree our neighbors have a right to expect that the water they're drinking is safe. so here's our opportunity to come together and support strong groundwater monitoring at impoundment sites to keep all of our communities safe and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? mr. mckinley: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckinley: mr. chairman when we analyzed all of the proposed amendments to h.r. 1734 earlier this week, we

accepted those comments that might improve the legislation and make the state permitting process even stronger. so we can ensure that the coal ash impoundments are closed in a safe and efficient manner. unfortunately, this amendment would have the opposite effect. this amendment would require that all inactive impoundments or legacy sites, as they're known, comply with the requirements in the final rule to conduct postclosure care which includes the installation of groundwater monitoring. while i appreciate and share my colleague's concerns about impoundments, this amendment would not achieve what i believe is in my colleague's goal of ensuring the timely closure of an inactive surface impoundment. in the final rule, the e.p.a. recognized the need for efficient and timely closure of the inactive impoundments.

in fact, the e.p.a. incentivized the closure of legacy sites by ensuring that the utilities that closed the impoundments within the three-year wouldn't have any more requirements, including groundwater monitoring. this amendment would wipe out what the e.p.a.'s incentive for utilities to complete closure of inactive impoundments by requiring they require with it immediately. additionally, i think it's a broad agreement that the e.p.a.'s final rule, with respect to taking steps to address inactive surface impoundments. the gentleman's amendment goes further than even what the e.p.a. determined would be protective to address the legacy sites by requiring immediate compliance with certain requirements which is, as i indicated, would remove the incentives for e.p.a. to close inactive impoundments by

a deadline. many of the inactive surface impoundments will be clean closed. explain that. that means that all the coal ash will be removed from the impoundment. there is no need for 30-year postclosure care for those particular impoundments. so for all these reasons, mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. connolly: mr. chairman, on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in part c of house report 114-216. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. adams: to speak on my amendment, mr. speaker. the chair: does the gentlewoman have an amendment at the desk? ms. adams: i do. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part c of house report 114-216 offered by ms. adams of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 369, the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. adams, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. adams: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment provides strong and consistent safeguards to inform communities about coal ash contaminants in their drinking water supply wells. we heard a lot of talk about regulatory certainty. certainty for utilities, certainty for coal ash recyclers. but what about certainty for children and families who live near coal ash sites? certainty and transparency for their parents who rely on well

water to prepare their children's meals and to bathe them at night? these parents have the right to know if their water is safe to consume and they have a right to access that information immediately. and what about certainty of accountability, to ensure that these families can expect an alternate water supply if it's been compromised by coal ash pollution? north carolina can give the nation a lesson about what poor management of coal ash looks like. it looks like a disastrous spill of coal ash into the dan river. to make sure that the protection of our waterways cannot rely on the good will of powerful utilities. north carolina learned the hard way, that when state regulators stick their heads in the sand to allow the unfettered disposal of coal ash spills happen. i would like to tell you about the well testing from north carolina's department of environment and natural resources. out of the 285 wells tested

265 show contamination. that's more than 90% of the drinking water wells showing contamination. this information is made possible to communities because of senate bill 729, a bill that the north carolina general assembly passed last year while i served in the legislature. following the dan river spill, north carolina now requires owners and operators of coal ash dams to identify all drinking water supply wells within one half mile downgrade yent from impoundment. it is shows high levels of contamination, then the owner or operator must replace the contaminated drinking water with an alternate supply of water that's safe. my amendment seeks to provide rural communities across the nation with the same requirements that citizens in north carolina now enjoy requirements that gives them the certainty that their water is safe. americans in north carolina and across the nation have the right to access safe drinking water especially rural

communities who rely overwhelmingly on private wells as their main source of drinking water. finally, coal ash pollution often affects low-income communities who don't have the resources to go up against big utilities. passing this amendment will give these communities the resources they deserve to protect themselves. i urge my colleagues to join me in standing with the people of north carolina and rural communities across the nation who deserve transparency and nothing less. thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. shimkus: to speak in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. we applaud the activity of the state of north carolina, and that's the whole benefit of h.r. 1734. because the federal regulation proposed by e.p.a. is a floor and if through a state certification program, if the states want to ramp that up to a higher level they can.

so what north carolina has done is able to be done under the current legislation, but your amendment has a lot of problems and that's why i rise in opposition. it would require each owner of the surface impoundment to provide e.p.a. and the state certain types of drinking water wells to pay for and perform groundwater sampling. these wells provide alternate sources of water and issue regular reports on these activities. i understand your concern, but i'm not sure you get there with this amendment. you talk about providing certainty. well there's already certainty to do this under federal law. the amendment means -- under the superfund law, e.p.a. already has the authority to obtain information access property, inspect if there is reasonable basis to believe there may be a release or threat of release. so there's already certain

under that law. not only does sircla is proposing, the safe drinking water act would provide it. it would have them provide an alternative source of drinking water if wells are found to exceed safe drinking water act standards. but section 1431 of the safe drinking water act already allows e.p.a. to require that alternate sources of drinking water be provide. e.p.a. has information that can -- contaminate is likely to enter a public water system or an underground source of drinking water. so we already have that in federal statute. especially if it may present an imminent and substantial endangerment of the health of persons. beyond the duplication existing in the law that we already have, there are also concerns with your amendment. the amendment focuses on drinking water wells that are one half mile downgradient from a surface impoundment. we ask -- seems an arbitrary

determination that for all states and for all impoundments that that's where the groundwater is and that's definitely not true around the country. can we be sure that this is the correct distance? why was that number selected? the amendment would require the owners and operators to provide an alternative source of drinking water within 24 hours. while we completely understand the need to move quickly, it may not be feasible to secure an alternate source of drinking water within that short period of time. perhaps of greater concern, the amendment includes key terms like, and i quote, drinking water supply well that are undefined and the amendment would trump all other groundwater monitoring requirements required by the e.p.a. final rule and state permit programs. we're not trying to re-create existing authority. rather we're focused on getting the folks with the most experience and knowledge of this issue and make sure they're not causing

contamination, but i ensure you that h.r. 1734 makes sure that if it is causing it, states will ensure their citizens have safe drinking water. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment, and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. adams:ie, mr. speaker. i yield -- yes, mr. speaker, i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you. i want to thank the gentlewoman and thank the chairman. i support this amendment, which would improve protection for human health and the environment nationwide, and i'd like to thank my colleague from north carolina for her hard work on this important issue and for offering this amendment. the citizens and government of north carolina recognize the seriousness of the risks posed by coal ash. they've experienced the devastation coal ash can cause, and that's why even republicans in the state government have supported strengthening regulation of coal ash. representative adams speaks from personal experience that many of us has been spared or

have been spared, but we should not wait for more coal ash disasters to adopt strong preventive measures. and so i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and vote yes. but i do want to caution that like my colleague i will urge a no vote on final passage even if this amendment passes. i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . the amendment is not agreed to. mrs. adams: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from north carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part c of house report 114-216 for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. butterfield: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 6

printed in part c of house report 114-216, offered by mr. butterfield of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 369, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. butterfield: mr. chairman i rise in support of our amendment that will ensure that vulnerable communities are protected from the sun safe storage of coal combustion reside youals known as coal ash. it would prevent the framework going into effect if states fail to protect vulnerable populations from the adverse effects of coal ash storage. vulnerable populations defined in the amendment include, infants, children adolescence pregnant women, elderly, racial or ethnic groups and others identified by the e.p.a. administrator. 70% of coal ash impoundments are

located in low-income communities. coal ash impoundments lacking proper safeguards can fail resulting harmful chemicals into ground water. causes water contamination in 37 states. in worst case scenarios, catastrophic areas to flow in rivers, ponds and streams. spilled into a nearby river causing a superfund site which could cost $1.2 billion in re mediation costs. 82,000 tons of coal ash spilled

into the dan river in north carolina near the district of ms. adams. after a pipe burst causing a coal ash impoundment failure. costs for that cloneup are $300 million in the short-term and could potentially have a greater long-term impact. the majority of coal ash ponds are located in close proximity to vulnerable communities. it is important to protect those communities from being disproportionately affected by poor coal ash storage. this commonsense amendment ensures that if this bill were to go into effect, vulnerable populations are protected from the potentially adverse effects of coal ash exposure. so, mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. at this time, i would like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek

recognition? mr. shimkus: speak against the amendment. reluctantly mr. chairman, first we learned about this amendment before us late on monday. of course, i was struck by the gentleman's deep concern about vulnerable populations, people because of circumstances or physical attributes are more at risk than others when it comes to certain environmental exposures. he knows i share his concern. we reached a unanimous committee position in this area, in fact throughout the bill. i reached out to him tuesday morning to explain -- tried to explain the gentleman's amendment was problematic at it was drafted and wanted to work with him without gutting the rest of our bill. despite hard work from both teams and time, staff all day tuesday, we weren't able to reach the agreement so the gentleman opted to revert to his

original proposal. i see three basic problems with the amendment as being offered. first, it gives the e.p.a. administrator effectively unilateral veto power of the entire coal ash bill if a population is not protected. this undoes the entire premise of the bill that brings the best of the e.p.a.'s proposed rule and regulating solid waste through permit program. the gentleman defines vulnerable population by listing 10 specific population groups for protection. everyone on his list i agree with, infants elderly persons, based on racial or ethnic back grouped. when we include some on the list we could wind up excluding others. we should be sure to include all vulnerable groups and suggest

that the language do just that. third, i'm not sure the gentleman's amendment passes constitutional scrutiny. we in the congress have sweeping power to waive requirements of law but i don't think we can give power to cancel a law all together. only the president has that power subject to override votes in the congress. i was and more willing to work this out with the gentleman and we did try. i regret this amendment does not reflect those efforts. i urge a no vote and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. butterfield: it is true, we did make an effort to try to reach some common glound and regrettably, we were not able to get there. i thank for having the conversation and hopefully legislate in a way that will protect vulnerable communities from this type of activity.

at this time, i would like to the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i thank the gentleman from north carolina and i rise in support of his amendment. it raises an important part that should be part of our dialogue. the unsafe disposal of coal ash poses serious risk to human health and the environment. those are acute to the minority and low-income communities. unfortunately this dangerous bill would diminish protections for those communities most at risk. important safeguards would be eliminated and significant discretion would be given to states to choose whether or not other safeguards will apply. this will hurt hot spot communities for the same reason that they host these dangerous communities because they do not have the political clout and voice that other communities have. we must recognize the risks

faced by vulnerable populations and ensure that those risks are addressed. while i don't support the bill overall, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and vote yes. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. butterfield: i have no further speakers. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. butterfield: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to -- does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. butterfield: i do. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part c of house report 114-216 on which proceedings were

postponed. amendment number 2 by mr. pallone of new jersey, amendment number 4 by mr. connelly of virginia, amendment number 5 by ms. adams and amendment number 6 . the chair will reduce the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report c 114-216 on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-216 offered by mr. pallone of new jersey. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the

united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 177, the nays are 244678 the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in part c of house report 114-216 by the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four printed in house report 114-234, offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in spoth of the request for a vorded tissue recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 177, the nays are 244 the amendment is not adopted. -- 245. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in part c of house report 114-216 by the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. adams, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part c of house report 114-216 offered by ms. adams of north carolina. the chair: a recorded rote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 192, the nays are 231. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in part c of house report 114-216 by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part c of house report 114-216 offered by mr. butterfield of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 17, the nays are 240. the amendment is not -- quite closed.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 180, the nays are 240. the amendment is not adopted. there being no further amendments under the rule the committee rises. mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1734 and pursuant to the resolution, i report the bill back to the house with a sundry amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the

committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 1734, and pursuant to house resolution 369, reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on the adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend subtitle d of the solid waste disposal act for 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 speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. foster of illinois moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 1734, to the energy and commerce committee, with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment, page 11, after line 16, insert the following d, protecting drinking water in the great lakes. the implement agency shall require that all structures that meet criteria for design, construction and maintenance sufficient to i prevent any toxic a.m.t. of groundwater and

ii protect -- >> reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: point of order is reserved. clerk will resume. the clerk: ii, protect sources of drinking water including the great lakes, the largest freshwater system in the world. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members will take their seats. the house will be in order. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. foster: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. what this commonsense amendment does is something that i think we should all be able to agree is a good thing. it protects our drinking water. my motion to recommit would require that coal ash --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the house will be in order. members will remove their conversations from the house floor. the house will be in order. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. foster: my motion to recommit would require that tell ash impoundments must be sufficient to prevent toxic levels of contamination of ground water and to protect all sources of drinking water including but not limited to the great lakes. coal ash the material after coal -- left after coal is burned, contain miss toxic elements, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium lead, and selenium. arsenic exposure can lead to

nervous system damage, cardiovascular issues urinary tract cancer lung cancer and skin cancer. when people are exposed to lead, they may experience brain swell, kidney disease, heart problems, nervous system damage a drop in intelligence, or even death. if not handled properly, these toxins can and do leach from storage sites and contaminate nearby water sources. i think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can agree we don't want our children drinking water contaminated with lead, arsenic and other tox excompounds but that's exactly what happens when these surface impoundments are not properly built, maintained, and monitored. according to a study, people living near unlined coal ash ponds have an increased cancer risk caused by arsenic contamination alone in their drinking water.

i suspect this is a higher risk than any of us would accept for our families and ourselves. but i do not believe that it is an accident that coal ash ponds as well as the coal plants that produce them are disproportionately located in economically december vadged areas, placing the burden -- economically disadvantaged areas, placing the burden on those with few resources to help themselves and their families. a 2011 report by the integrity project found that my district has the most sites and that groundwater contamination exceeded standards in all 22 sites. we know the coal ash ponds contaminating groundwater, some are located in waukegan illinois bordering lake michigan. but contamination in illinois is not just a problem for

people in illinois. it's a problem for the entire country. water crosses state boundies in rivers lakes and underground aquifers. that's why coal ash should be regulated at a national level and at a minimum we should demand that groundwater and drinking water should be protect the great lakes are the largest freshwater system in the world and it is unconscionable that we are considering a bill today that would weaken protections for the water many of us drink. the vote on this motion to recommit is fundamentally about whether or not you believe that all people in this, in our country, deserve access to safe drinking water. soy urge my colleagues to vote yes on this motion and yes to protecting the health of millions of american families. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. shimkus: i withdraw my point of order and claim time in opposition.

the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the motion? mr. shimkus: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shimkus: i appreciate my colleagues we have had some good debate. let me talk about what we have done. we have taken the recent e.p.a. rule and we codified it. in other words, we set it into statutory language so it can be enforceable. that allows states to set up state permitting programs that can be enforced. and you know we trust states with what we call the solid waste disposal act which is rcra, to protect the great lakes and i think we can trust the states in working with minimum federal standards to do the same thing. in the e.p.a. -- the e.p.a. three times has determined that coal ash is not toxic. the e.p.a. has determined three times, in 1993, in 2000, and

with their recently released rule in december, they said coal ash is not toxic. so i'm going to end on two letters that we mentioned in the bill markups and through the floor the group called ecos, the environmental council of the states, all the states' e.p.a. directors and also another group, called aswamo, association of state and territorial solid waste management officials which is in all the territories and the western governor's association, not a single dissent. western governors' association includes california, oregon, washington state, all support h.r. 1734 because it actually does the opposite of what my colleague claims. it strengthens the law. it codifies our ability to enforce the rule so that our

community is safe. so with that, i appreciate my colleague's motion. i ask my colleagues to reject it and i yield back our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. foster: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20 this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill if ordered. s that five-minute vote. -- this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 184 the nays are 240, with zero answering present. the motion is not adopt thsmed equestion is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. >> i demand a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. a sufficient -- the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.

any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 258, the nays are 166. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 370, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3009, to amend section 241-i of the immigration and nationality act, to deny assistance under such section to a state or political subdivision of a state that prohibits its officials from taking certain actions with respect to immigration. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar

and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask -- i request unanimous consent to remove the following persons as co-sponsor of h.r. 2646. joyce beatty, rhonda sanities and zoe lofgren. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. today i'd like to draw attention to the excellent work that the architect of the capitol's been doing in repairing and restoring the dome of our capitol building. mr. lamalfa: i was recently beliefed with an update on the progress they're making about halfway through the project and

very impressed so far with the work. starting last june they installed 52 miles worth of scaffolding at 25 layers around the dome it. only touches the dome at three areas, so the weight-bearing structures do not affect and damage the dome. i'm glad to note also that part of the repair devices come from california, in order to repair the cracks that they have in the iron structure that happens over the years. a company from california devised a drill and self-tapping mechanism here that require noes welding, no furnaces, none of the complications you get with cast-iron, making repair of the dome effective and very good for the long-term. they've removed 12 layers of paint and will put on three new good layers to make the dome gleam. we have some really excellent folks, 100 people in construction at any one time, helping to make our dome gleam. that's something we can all be proud of in our country, which is what i think this capitol symbolizes, the greatness of the united states of america. my hat's off to the great work

of the architect of the capitol in restoring our dome. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek -- and from ohio seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. swalwell: mr. speaker i rise to remember and honor phillip schultz of california who died last year saving another person from an oncoming train. in january 2014 phillip saw someone on thecal train commuter tracks. he reached out to try to help save this person. both were tragically struck by the train and while the other man suffered injuries only he survived and we lost phillip. originally from washington state phil attended college in the bay area at santa clara university and at the time of his death he and his wife had lived in plentton, my

congressional district, for over 10 years. he was not just a here fo are owe areow -- hero for the way he saved this man's life, that's how he lived every day. he loved to hike, play organized sports and rescue animals. he was also a regular blood donor and constantly put others before himself. his wife and friends have honored his memory by creating a foundation. to support the interests and causes in which he believed. such as donating to the valley humane society of pleasantton. earlier this year he was awarded the carnegie medal by the carnegie hero fund commission, given to recognize those who have risked their lives to save others and only given to fewer than 10,000 people since 1904. both the memorial foundation and this award are fitting tributes to such a courageous man. hopefully they serve to remind us of phil's example and inspire others as well. thank you mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. davis: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today to honor andre iguodala, an illinois native who is named the most valuable player playing for the golden state wars in the 2wi69 nba championship series. mr.ing diala's basketball career began in illinois' 13th district as a student at a high school in springfield. he led his team to the state championship game in his senior year and went on to play for the university of arizona. after graduation, andre began his professional basketball career in the nba. before his appearance this year in the nba finals, andre proudly represented america as a member of the 2012 u.s. olympic team in london. he crbletted to the team's efforts that ultimately earned them a gold medal. this year andre proved to be an important contributor to the

warriors' twrivet nba finals success. he was a crucial part in helping to earn the team the nba championship title and he was awarded the m.v.p. award with a resounding vote of 7-4. i'm proud to recognize andre iguodala and his many accomplishments and his dedication to basketball from his time as a youth in springfield illinois until now. congratulations, andre. congratulations to all the warrior fans and congratulations to those in springfield who continue to look up to you every single day. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. fudge: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker.

730 days. 17,520 hours. 1,051,200 minutes. two full years since the supreme court ruled section 4 of the voting rights act of 1965 unconstitutional. two full years without voter protections and full access to the ballot box. since the ruling, many americans and state -- in states like ohio have been subjected to restrictive voter registration requirements, paying costly fees for state i.d.'s, other watt -- or waiting in line for hours on election day. legislation to restore the v.r.a. and strengthen the right to vote have been offered by the majority, have been offered but the majority has refused to take them up. it is clear congress has dropped the ball. two years without the full protection of the voting rights act is too long. the clock is ticking. it is time to restore the v.r.a. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek reck nix -- seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lipinski: mr. speaker, americans are appalled by the murder of cape steinly, by a man who had been deported five times. was wanted by. i c.e. but was let free. in chicago, someone was killed by a drunk driver who was in our country illegally. i.c.e. issued a detainer but the defendant was let out on bail and disappeared. donald trump is wrong. most american immigrants -- most immigrants in america are upstanding people who come to our country would to -- our country to work hard.

but policies that permit these traffic esties should be stopped -- travesties should be stopped. unfortunately we're not being offered a commonsense solution. we're offered the polarizing choices that we either do nothing or we harm the very institutions and citizens we are trying to protect. what we need to do is stop local policies that ignore i.c.e. detainers and let criminals go who are in our country illegally. i know this commonsense solution will anger people on both sides. but ask local police. they want to focus on those who have committed crimes in their communities. it's just common sense. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. clawson of florida for today and ms. nacks even -- ms. maxine waters of california for today until 3:00

p.m. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, request thes are granted -- the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from texas, mr. veasey, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . mr. veasey: i honor the life and legacy of one of the leaders that stood tall here and back home in texas, james wright who past away at the age of 92. his wife betty just died on july 15, just last week and so the

family has been through a lot. and we have a lot of really nice stories to tell about speaker wright and how he has influenced so many people. and i want to begin by recognizing our minority whip from maryland, the gentleman from maryland, steny hoyer. mr. hoyer: jim wright would have been proud of marc veasey. he would have said marc veasey was in the jim wright tradition. mr. speaker, i rise to talk about a mr. speaker. to pay tribute to the life and legacy of a man who served this house and our country with distinction as a member, asthma the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. leader and as speaker. jim wright was a man of principle and great political skill. he relied on both in his 34

years in congress. i have now served 34 years in congress. and part of that 34 years, i had the honor of serving with jim wright. just two years after he was first elected to represent text -- text as' and opposing desee greg gation. as so many of his southern colleagues did. it was a risk, of course, mr. speaker politically, but he put his belief in equal opportunity ahead of what was popular among his constituents at the time. when he voted for the civil rights act of 1957, it was a further sign of his courage of his conviction and of his adherence to the principles that made our country so great and so

respected. in spite of breaking with many of his southern conservative democratic colleagues on that issue, he forged friendships based on mutual respect and good old-fashioned comradery, just as he did with other members across the country and across party lines. jim was elected in 1976 and was serving in that capacity when i came to congress in 1981. today, mr. speaker i'm honored to sit in the same office h- 148, in the capitol building, just a few feet from this floor, where jim wright sat as the majority leader. if you look up towards the ceiling in one corner of our office suite, you can see the great seal of the state of texas on the wall. in the center of that seal is

the proud lone star texas. sam rayburn may have been one of those stars. lyndon johnson may have been one of those stars and many other text ans -- texans but that lope star stands for jim wright. jim was that lone star who stood out at the seventdr center of our party. and he never wavered in his mission to bring democrats and republic caps together and comity and yes compromise which is in little supply on this floor right now. jim was an extraordinary person. he was someone who refused to take no as an answer.

mr. speaker at age 10, he tried hard to join the boy scouts even though he was two years shy of the minimum age to participate. and at 13, jim lied and said he was 16 in order to enter a boxing townment. there are some 13-year-olds who could empathize with that and he almost won that competition. in high school, his classmates wrote in his class of 1939 yearbook that jim would likely be serving in congress by 1955. how open his classmates were, and he won his first congressional election in 1954. jim learned that the attack on pearl harbor had occurred. without hesitation he decided to

drop out of college the next day and joined the army air corps. he flew 300 combat hours over the south pacific. he flew, as my step-father did in the battles that were fought in the pacific to combat those who attacked pearl harbor. he was decorated. those who served with jim in the house saw the same determined spirit he demonstrated in the army as he applied himself of serving the people of texas. i had the opportunity to be at jim wright's funeral on may 11 of this year. you know, on the day of his assassination in the last speech of his life, president john

kennedy visited what he called jim wright's city and praised the congressman by saying quote, i don't know of any city that is better represented in the congress of the united states than fort worth, texas. i can remember the year after jim wright was elected speaker of the house, i had the opportunity of chairing a dinner that was held in fort worth one of the biggest ever held there. i will echo therefore that sentment. i can think of few who served in the congress who were remembered as fondly by those they served with than jim wright. by his constituents by his colleagues and by his family. he loved this institution

dearly. his family and those who served with him, like me, will miss him. a grateful nation thanks him for a lifetime of service to us all. and i thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. mr. veasey: mr. hoyer, i thank you very much. i appreciate those very kind words about speaker wright and everybody in fort worth will appreciate those kind words as well. i would like to recognize leader nancy pelosi another member of congress who also served with speaker wright and someone that she was also very fond of and had the opportunity to talk with speaker wright a couple of years before his passing when she was down in fort worth. i recognize leader nancy pelosi.

ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman for yielding time on this very, very special order and afford the opportunity to visit with speaker wright as you mentioned in the recent past and number of visits to texas, i basked in his glow, because that's what we did here in the congress of the united states. when jim wright was the speaker, i served under his leadership, i was a relatively new member. and when he would come to this floor, to this well, to speak as the speaker of the house his oratory was just so compelling. people would stop what they were doing to listen to what jim wright had to say. in some ways that was another

air ave of how the work of congress was conducted where people would come and actually listen to the debates. he was a man of great oratorical skill. but he was also a person of great courage and great principle. we honor the memory of this great speaker of the house. from the service that earned him the distinguished flying cross in world war ii and leadership that defined his 34 years in the house, he defined commitment to the america's families. he was one of the most distinguished and dedicated public servants, a person known for deep courage and complete mastery of the legislative process. wright's strong decisive leadership dealt a legacy of

progress not only in his state of texas but around the world. he invested in our infrastructure. he had been a member of the transportation committee. and helped forge peace in central africa and i commend him for his brilliance and leadership and courage. it was hard to do. he south prosperity for every hardworking family. he was a patriot who held the respect of friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle. even after he left the house wright contributed to building a better future for our countrier sharing his which is come as leader at texas christian university. when jim wright was presented the gavel in 1987, becoming the speaker of the 100th congress, he spoke of the enduring promise

of our contusion and the responsibility to entrust the members of the house. we are the cuss towedian. and the men had in mind the very special place for the congress. ours, he said is a creative and dynamic role. only we can appropriate. we are expected to innovate and speak the object ta calls and chart a path around our nation. let us with gratitude for the privilege that is ours ask god that he shall grant to us a portion of the vision to see the right, the courage to stand for the right, the honesty to admit through an error. and the love that binds our nation and people together, to the end that we may continue to be the envy of the world but inspiration of the world and

instrument of his peace. 28 years later, jim wright's prayer still speaks to us through the decades. he was a person who had the courage to stand for the right and for that we are enormously grateful. he never stopped serving our country and his acheefments will stand as a monument. i learned a lot from jim wright for the short time i served with him in congress and from time to time i share those lessons with newer members of the congress. i do so -- i learned a lot as i said, but also with great humor. we hope it is a comfort to family and friends who are coming to the floor to remember his memory.

and may it challenge all of us to do more and better on behalf of america's hardworking families. thank you to his family. it was an honor to serve with him and bigger privilege to call him friend. i always invited him to the congress for any special occasion we had and on one or two occasions, he did accept and that was an honor for this house. i yield back to the gentleman and i thank him for calling this special order. mr. veasey: i appreciate those kind words about speaker wright. i know that his family will appreciate. mr. speaker, i yield. ms. pelosi: on occasions that i did see him in texas on the most recent occasions, how he

expressed the pride he took and your service in the congress. so congratulations to you on carrying on that beautiful legacy. mr. veasey: thank you very much. i would like to recognize from the 0th congressional district in texas, the the gentlewoman from from dallas, mrs. johnson, who was a good friend of speaker wright's and has some great stories about things she shared with speaker wright. i welcome the gentlewoman from texas, mrs. johnson. . . ms. johnson: i rise today with great pleasure to pay tribute to the life and legacy of the former speaker of the house james "jim" wright who passed away on wednesday may 6, at age 92 of this year. speaker wright served in congress for more than three

decades and left an indelible legacy as chairman of the public works committee that is now named the transportation and infrastructure committee. he was elected by his peers as speaker in 1987. he was born in fort worth, texas, the son of a traveling salesman. he was educated at weatherford college and the university of texas at austin. he dedicated his life to serving in public service. he bravely served in the united states army air force during world war ii and was awarded the distinguished flying cross for flying combat missions in south pacific. subsequently, he was lected -- elected to the texas house of representatives in 1946. he served as mayor weather -- mayor of weatherford texas from 1950 to 1954 and was elected to the u.s. house of representatives in 1954.

and was re-elected 16 times. speaker wright was a visionary who served the people of fort worth and this nation well. he's deserving of this tribute. because of his leadership, the house experienced one of the most prolific periods. speaker wright demonstrated his skill as a political leader and a master legislator by shepherding extraordinary complex legislation through the house. he understood that the business of legislating and good politics required good skill in the art of compromise. speaker wright never backed down from a challenge. and even after leaving office, he continued to serve the public diligently. i was always able to consult with speaker wright and i'll always cherish those memories. he helped me get through the

period -- of doing away with this wright amendment, he was the author of the wright amendment at the time the dallas-fort worth airport was built. and when it came time for it to change, only speaker wright, even in retirement was able to get it loose in the senate so that we could get it passed in the house as well. so our country has lost one of the finest statesmen and i have lost a very close personal friend whose wisdom dignity and knowledge of the legislative process was unquestionably enviable. he is among the most influential speakers in the history of the house of representatives. jim wright is really an unforgettable public servant and leader. a man fueled by passion and concern for others. he set the bar high for his successors. and at the time of his death, he was survived by his wife,

betty, who was deceased just recently. and four children. i stand today to honor former speaker of the house, jim wright, and thank him for his work in the service of the people of texas and throughout the nation. he's left a powerful legacy and we will live it on through generations. i want to thank my colleague, congressman veasey, for having the leadership and the vision for giving -- waiting for a while to be able to sponsor this hour in tribute to speaker wright. thank you very much and i yield back. mr. veasey: thank you, congresswoman from the 30th district, eddie bernice johnson, for your very kind words about speaker wright. he was very fond of you and appreciated your leadership in an area that compeled in, which was transportation -- excelled in, which was transportation, and just want to thank you for your kind words. now i would like to recognize from houston, texas the

distinguished gentlelady, sheila jackson lee, who would also like to have a few words about speaker jim wright. so many texans that served with jim wright and didn't have the opportunity to serve with him really appreciated his style, everything that he stood for. he was such a statesman. and you can tell how his influence was felt. because so many individuals like sheila, so many other people that knew the speaker, you know, reached out to me after his death and wanted to send condolences to his friends and family and just thankful that he was so influential and sheila jackson lee's life -- in sheila jackson lee's life as well. now, mr. speaker, the gentlelady from houston, sheila jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman from texas and in particular for fort worth, and

i'm delighted -- particular forth worth, and i'm delighted to be here with my colleagues from all over the nation, leader pelosi and whip hoyer and my colleague as well, congresswoman johnson from dallas. we all gathered at the funeral of speaker wright and it was almost like a reunion of family members from the many political persons, public servants who not only through the years had known speaker wright, but really those who came to honor him because of the iconic role that he played in the history of texas and the history of america. we're excited he was a speaker that cared about people and cared about members. he, as was indicated, was born in fort worth loved forth worth and never wanted to -- fort worth and any of wanted to leave fort worth. he was the son of a professional boxer who turned

tailor. but after the attack in pearl harbor, december, 1941, he left college to enlist in the united states army and flew combat missions in south pacific, earning the distinguished flying cross and the legion of merit. he was of the greatest generation. he served in the texas house. from his hometown of weatherford he became a mayor, was a mayor. his boyhood home. he served in that post for four years from 1950 to 1954. before his first congressional victory. and as well, speaker wright had a way with words. he was an eloquent speaker. he was a disciple of house speaker sam rayburn, a fellow texan. he was also a kfdabt of another texas -- confidant of another texan, lyndon b. johnson, before becoming vice president in 1961. and as well, he was in the presidential motorcade on

november 22, 1963, when president john f. kennedy was assassinated in dallas. to describe the depth of sadness that engulfed us that day defines vocablary -- defied vocablary, he once said. recalling how the friendly mood of the dallas crowds turned to sheer terror and horror. it was that day that his friend president johnson, became the president of the united states. he worked hard for the people of fort worth, he was a person of deep courage, brilliance, eloquence and complete mastery of the legislative process. he was decisive and strong and he handled his texas members, he championed the causes of texas, he believed in the goodness of america and he was a great achiever. loved the boy scouts. and as i indicated, his father was a boxer, he started out doing that as well. so i come today to honor him as a great american and to add to

this tribute that he served president lyndon baynes johnson when the civil rights act and the voting rights act were passed. he was a friend of my predecessor, one of my predecessors, the honorable barbara jordan. they served together. they knew each other. they were strong texans but they loved america. and so i know that as we look to promoting his legacy besides caring about this institution and loving america, and honoring our men and women in the united states military, i know that it is also time in his name to bring forward the voting rights acts re-authorization that will again -- act re-authorization that will again restore the people's right to vote and will capture what he understood to be the right way to handle america's business, and as well it captures his friends' -- friend's vision, the honorable barbara jordan, who in fact wrote the language to add texas

to the voting rights act. so i thank you, congressman, for having this very special special, special order, for us to thank a dear friend who again, i absolute tonight -- salute tonight as a great american. to his family, thank you so very much for sharing jim wright, speaker wright, great texan, great american, with all of us. i yield back. thank you. mr. veasey: thank you. i want to thank the gentlelady from houston, sheila jackson lee, for sharing so many great stories and fond memories of speaker jim wright. and i would like to add a few words of my own. jim wright was very influential to me. when i was elected into the state legislature in 2004, it was when i really started to get to know him well. i had known him previous to that, when i was an aide for a united states congressman who was also from fort worth. but once i got into the state

legislature, i got to know him even more and i realized very quickly what a great story teller he was. speaker wright had some amazing stories from people that he had met over the years, people that influenced him in his life. and so many people always wonder how he became the great orator that he was. there were so many stories that i heard early on about before the house had c-span. now we can watch coverage of the house of representatives 24 hours a day, thanks to technology. but speaker wright was such a great speaker that -- a great orator that before c-span came into effect, you heard stories about staffers coming in to fill the galleries so they could come and hear this man from fort worth texas, come and give speeches because they were so amazing. and i asked him, i said how did you become the great orator that you were when you were in

the u.s. house of representatives and that you still are today? even with unfortunately the oral cancer he had had. his speech had been hampered. but he was still amazing, the wisdom and the knowledge that he shared. and as you heard from so many speakers tonight, boxing was a very important part of his life. he loved boxing. it was something that he watched over the years and when he was growing up in weatherford texas that was one of the ways how young boys and men distinguished themselves, was their boxing skills, on the street. he told me that one day his dad told him that while it was great that he was able to distinguish himself with his fists through boxing, that if he really wanted to improve his self and improve his lot in life, he'd learn to be a great orator. that he would learn what the anatomy of a great speech was

all about. so jim wright at a very early age decided that he was going to learn how he could become a better speaker. and there are so many stories like that. i went to his office right before i was sworn in 2012 and i asked him to just share some of that wisdom with me as an incoming new member of congress. he just told me so many stories that day. one of them related to boxing. i had told him that larry hagman many of you know him from "i dream of genie" and from the tv series "dallas." and some of you may know that his mother, mary martin of "peter pan" fame she was from weatherford texas. and she knew jim wright and knew speaker wright's family. and i said, you know, larry told a friend of mine that he ran into -- that you taught him

how to box. and i said, is that true? and speaker wright began to tell me the story about how his mother thought that maybe he needed to get back to his texas roots and have a little bit more texas upbringing in him. and so she sent him back to weatherford texas, with his dad and speaker wright taught him how to box. and that was how larry learned how to become a boxer. you know, one of the areas that speaker wright and nancy pelosi talked about it a lot, how he was a big influence in my life and so many others. and i would be remiss if i did not mention some of the former members that also he was very influential in their lives. congressman martin frost, who was the ranking member of the rules committee. speaker wright was very --

very very influential in getting him on the rules committee. his freshman year in office. and also secretary pete garren, a former member of congress and secretary of the army and air force. again, speaker wright very influential early on in his career. he was actually -- pete was actually speaker wright's successor in congress and that was also very important to him. . he was someone who was proud of his democratic roots. had a very strong relationship with organized labor. and when you talk to people at lockheed martin and american airlines and things he did with transportation, all of those things were very, very important

person for whom he became. in addition to that, he also learned a lot from some of the failures and mistakes he made. his first term in the state legislature. he didn't get along with the speaker of the house in the state legislature. when he was elected here he wanted to make sure he got along with sam rayburn. and he said, marc, i learned my lesson from the state legislature and i want to be on the foreign affairs committee because that was happening in the 1950's. and with the cold war going on, i wanted to be on that committee. and speaker rayburn put me on the public works committee, which is the transportation and infrastructure committee.

he said that was a mistake that i made. hard to think i would become majority leader and speaker of the house had i not be on the public works committee. in addition to being that strong strong democrat that he was, i can tell you that bipartisan was something that he was very fond of, because he talked a lot after his career in congress that bipartisanship made this country strong and helped him make a better member of congress. if you look a couple of months ago, you notice the remarks that were given from a very bipartisan group, roger williams from fort worth kate granger,

former member of fort worth talked about how he did so many great things for fort worth. one of the areas he liked to talk about is the voting rights act and how important voting rights were to him and eisenhower and the freeways. and he told us how icen hour about getting the interstate highway bill passed and the president said let's get it done and how they came together in a bipartisan way to get the legislation done. but my favorite story that he told me about the importance of bipartisanship. i said, mr. speaker, i'm going to be a new member of congress and people talk about congress broken and how they don't work

together and i said do you know why that is. he said we spent a lot of time getting to know one another. and he said i want to tell you a story. i told my daughter, i want you to get a job and this is before majority leader, i want you to get a job and i do not want you to use my name. do not use my name. and she came home that evening and said daddy, i found a job. and he said great. he she said i got a job in the minority leader's office. did you tell him who he was. he said dad, you told me not to use my name. he called geraldford up and he

said gerald, i need to apologize to you, my daughter has accepted a job in your office and supposed to report first thing in the morning and she cannot accept the job. and he said gerald said, if your daughter wants to work here, it wouldn't be a problem at all. can you imagine that happening today. things have really, really changed. speaker wright was an amazing person, a person of great wisdom intelligence. humility. he would talk about how he lost his senate race. things didn't end up working out for him in the house of representatives. he could find humor in something

that was a big defeat for him. and i wanted to thank him and i'm thankful that our paths crossed and he was an influence to me. the city i'm from, the city is the great city that it is today because of the work and the statesmanship and his legacy continues to live on. positions in office and business, and mr. speaker, i'm just very, very grateful and very blessed that i knew speaker james claude "jim" wright. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, the gentleman from texas mr.

hensarling is recognized as the designee of the majority leader. mr. hensarling: there are a number of us regarding the fifth anniversary of the dodd-frank act. there is another important anniversary that needs to be recognized in america today and for that, i'm happy to yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus. mr. shimkus: thank you, and i do appreciate you letting me come in on your committee time. mr. chairman, mr. speaker, i give thanks to god and publicly celebrate the 66th anniversary of my mom and dad. dad was raised in illinois and

mom was raised in state park just down the road of state park. they are both graduates of collinsville high school, dad in 1946 and mom in 1949. mom worked as a telephone operator. mom and dad got married on july 22 1950, 65 years ago today. dad was drafted during the korean war and left for korea. on august 3 1951, their first child bill was born. dad returned from war and various telephone companies as that industry changed. he received his associate degree from southern illinois university. mom started her career and has kept, as now mother of the family. from here the family grew as

dorothy, joan helen, jean againa and i were born. the kids grew up to become a pastor health care worker c.p.a. and politician. bill lives in the northwest and married to betty. dorothy has two boys. join is married and has two boys. and helen is married to pat and lives in tennessee and have two daughters. jean has two sons as well as a daughter. jana is married to chris. there are nine great-grand chirp. in an era where everything is disposable it is uplifting to see something that has lasted. for things to last, you have to work at it.

thank you mom and dad for teaching us about life. we have survived the good and bad and united as a family. the shimkus clan will accomplish this weekend by spending time together. our gathering culminates with attending church on sunday. we have much to be thankful for. but mostly for god's undid he served love and rising for our salvation. congratulations, mom and dad and thank you for being the parents you are. i yield back. mr. hensarling: i ask unanimous consent that all members may

have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous remarks on the subject of this special order. i just want to thank the gentleman from illinois to remind us of what is truly important in life having to do with our faith and family and i thank him for allowing us to be part of that very special moment for he and his parents and his whole family tonight. now to the topic of tonight, mr. speaker, this week marks the fifth anniversary of the passage of the dodd-frank act, which was passed in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008. we were told at the time, mr. speaker, that it would lift our economy and to big to fail and

promote financial stability. we have five years' of data and five yearso of experience. and the evidence is overwhelming. five years after the passage of dodd-frank, the big banks are bigger, the small banks are fewer. we will explore over the next hour all the different ways that regrettably what good intentions might have been behind this bill, the most massive rewright of our laws, 400-plus new rules that have been promulgated, 2/3 of which have been finalized, what this has done in many ways mr. speaker to make the american people and our economy less stable, to make us less prosperous. and more importantly and most

regrettably how this law has made us less free. house republicans are working to make sure that every american has economic opportunity to climb the ladder of success and pursue happy fsness, but today, five years after dodd-frank, we have too many low and moderate- income americans losing sleep, worrying about their shrinking bank accounts. dodd-frank has made us less stable and less prosperous. made us less free. and so, mr. speaker i'm joined by many members of the house financial services committee that i have the honor and responsibility to chair. i'm so proud to call them colleagues and for their great

work to extend again economic activity and economic security to all americans and they know firsthand how hardworking men and women have suffered. and so i want to start out yielding time to the gentleman from new jersey, who happens to be the chairman of the capital markets subcommittee, and he knows firsthand that in order to have the benefits of enterprise, you have to have a very vibrant and capital markets and probably more so than anyone in congress, he is more qualified to talk to us about what dodd-frank has done to our capital markets and what it has done to prosperity and freedom. i yield to my friend from new jersey. mr. garrett: i thank the gentleman from texas for holding this special order tonight.

mr. speaker, birthdays are usually a cause of celebration. we mark five years since one of the most overreaching and damaging laws with heavy-handed on our economy. there were three big promises they made about this legislation. first that the legislation would end too big to fail. second, that the legislation wog protect consumers and third dodd-frank would make our economy more competitive. let's look at those one by one and see how they worked out so far. . by just about every measure, the biggest banks today are even bigger than they were before the financial crisis. while community banks and other small lenders continue to be shut out and shut down around the country. in fact, according to recent statistics, the five largest banks in the nation now control

roughly half, half of all the assets in our banking system. to put that into another perspective that means that outside of these institutions, it takes collectively, the collective access of over 6,000 banks in order to equal the amount of assets held by the five largest banks. moreover the so-called resolution authority included in title 2 of dodd-frank is not, as our former colleague, barney frank, put it, a death panel of the banks. it is in fact instead of a mechanism for future bailouts, enshrined now into the lane -- law. this is not just a case of baseless accusations. one need only look at the actual text of dodd-frank to understand how it allows for big banks to be bailed out by, who? by you, the american taxpayer. for example, dodd-frank gives the fdic the authority to do two things. first purchase the debt from creditors of a failing institution at par or even above par. and, two, pay any obligation of

an institution that it believes are necessary and appropriate during that time of crisis. so dodd-frank, of course also created so the called fsoc. what is that? the financial stability oversight council. which during its current existence has done virtually nothing to enhance the stability of the financial market. in fact, if you look at it, through its systemically important designation of institutions, fsoc has gone in the other direction. it has put taxpayers now on the hook not just for banks and bank bailouts but the potential bailout of nonbank institutions as well. so a law that has made the big banks bigger, gave regulators expansion of authority and put taxpayers now at so much risk cannot be called having ended too big to fail. it's not just those on our side of the aisle who are skeptical of dodd-frank's claims. here's an example. the g.a.o. in a january, 2013, report concluded, quote, there is no clear consensus on the extent to which, if at all the

dodd-frank act will help reduce the probability or severity of future crises. and a former senior official at the fed reserve stated recently, quote, if the whole purpose of dodd-frank was to eliminate the concept of too big to fail, and you judge it by that standard, well, then it's a failure. so by any objective measure, it is clear that they failed at point number one. and promise number one. so let's look at promise number two. dodd-frank will protect consumers. how has it protected consumers? well, on that matter, it depends on large part on what you mean by consumer protection. you see, drafters of dodd-frank and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that consumer protection involves complete bureaucratic control over the entire credit market. which gives a handful of individuals here, right in washington, d.c., the bureaucrats the ability to decide what kind of mortgage you want, what kind of credit card you're going to get the kind of student loan americans should have access to, and so

on. hence the creation of the unaccountable cfpb and the incredible amount of authority now that they have been given is given to a single agency or actually to a single dictator there, if you will. but real consumer protection, real consumer protection, doesn't involve unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats making decisions on behalf of you, the american citizen. no. real consumer protection involves ensuring competitive credit markets and empowering the consumer to make their own choices based off of well disclosed information in the marketplace. so by this measure the dodd-frank and the cfpb, they have again failed miserably. take, for example the cfpb's qualified mortgage rule. which became effective just last year. according to a study from the federal reserve's own flal reserve board, roughly 1/4 of americans right now have obtained a mortgage in 2010, would not have qualified for that mortgage that they did get

under the q.m. rule. increasing the likelihood then that millions of americans will find it harder in the future to actually qualify for a mortgage. moreover the affect of q.m. is even more pronounced on certain segments of the economy. such as minority borrowers, the same federal reserve study noted that about 1/3 of both african-americans and hispanic borrowers would have been ineligible, they could not have gotten a mortgage, under the q.m. loan. many of the bureau's initiatives regarding credit cards and other loans will have the same effect, of making it neither -- almost impossible or too expensive for individuals who are starting businesses to draw a line of credit. so it is clear that on promise number two of three, that dodd-frank is not protecting consumers and is in fact harming consumers and making it harder for them through all this red tape. so next and finally, promise number three. dodd-frank will make our economy more competitive, they said. that third promise will make our economy more competitive,

clearly has not come true. and in fact dodd-frank is a direct cause of the economic struggle that millions of americans continue to face today. just take a look for a minute at the sheer breadth of regulation that has come out of dodd-frank. the law provides so much regulation that it is a burden on the economy. the law firm of davis-pock performed a public service in 2013 when it estimated at the time that for every one word of text in dodd-frank 42 words 42 words of regulations have been produced. since that time, the number has even grown. so how can our economy possibly be more competitive today when such a huge amount of complex and burdensome regulations have imple -- been implemented over the last five years? we need to look no further than the growth of our economy to figure this out. which actually shrank during the first quarter of this year. and another remind that are we remain mirror -- mired in the weakest economic recovery since world war ii. so dodd-frank has actual tie --

actually served to weaken our economy, not strengthen it, and the millions of americans who have experienced a weak job market and decreased opportunity are the ones that are feeling the pain of dodd-frank. so, since 2011, the financial services committee under the chairmanship of jeb hen sarling from texas, has led the charge to roll back some of the most damaging provisions of dodd-frank. i commend the chairman and all my colleagues on the committee for the continued effort in this regard. unfortunately it now appears that many of these efforts which used to be bipartisan in nature are running up against the rigid ideology which believes that dodd-frank was chiseled in stone somehow and should never be changed. i believe that their view is unsustainable. as wen to see evidence of the harm that dodd-frank is inflicting upon america and hardworking americans at that. so our committee and this congress must continue to do the important work that will make it easier for our fellow citizens to get a job, pay a

credit card obtain a mortgage and create opportunities for themselves and their families. with that i yield back. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for his comments tonight. i thank him for his leadership on our committee. again mr. speaker it is the unhappy occasion that the fifth anniversary of the signing of the dodd-frank act, again weighing in at 2,300 pages it's so sad to realize, as the gentleman from new jersey pointed out, that so many of the promises that were made have not been kept. they have not been realized. again, the big banks are bigger. the small banks are fewer. and our hardworking constituents, many of them are worse off, many of them have stagnant paychecks and so many of them have smaller bank accounts. what they've seen is free checking cut in half in america. bank fees have gone up. this is all because of the dodd-frank law.

putting an incredible mass of regulations upon our community banks our credit unions. those who serve our hardworking families and our small businesses. again, we are regrettably in so many different ways, we are less prosperous. we are less stable and we are less free. i was there five years ago, mr. speaker, at the conference committee. republicans had an alternative. we had a bill that frankly was written and filed before the democrat bill was. but there was no willingness, no willingness to negotiate, no willingness to discuss, no willingness to compromise. and so we ended up with dodd-frank and the american people are poorer because of it. so now mr. speaker, i'm very happy to yield time to the gentleman from illinois, a very hardworking member of our committee, mr. hultgren, who brings a lot of expertise to this committee on a number of matters, especially insurance, which is near and dear to the

financial security of so many of our constituents, and i'm happy to get his views on this anniversary of dodd-frank. at this time i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren. mr. hultgren: thank you, chairman hensarling. mr. speaker, i rise today to mark five years of overly burdensome and costly banking regulation and a failed opportunity to address fundamental problems in our economy. leading up to 2008, a perfect storm of easy lending pushed by washington bureaucrats coupled with a spider web of duplicative conflicting and nonsensical regulations led to a complete breakdown of the housing market. a lack of regulation was not the problem. in fact, regulations increased in the 10 years leading up to the crisis. community banks were faced with determining which of several regulators to answer to first. small businesses faced ever-expanding compliance mandates, raising the cost of

doing business. yet at the time, those in power seized on the opportunity to never let a serious crisis go to waste. to reward regulators with much more authority. the fundamental issues of the housing crisis were never addressed. those who put in place the policies that encouraged risky borrowing and lend were never held accountable. instead the dodd-frank act doubled down on the misguided government policies that caused the crisis. doing nothing to stop another from happening in the future. dodd-frank's vast expansion of regulatory authority has not helped lift the economy, nor helped americans looking to pursue opportunity for themselves and their families. it failed to end too big to fail. it failed to protect consumers who rely on the community banks in their local towns. it failed to help small businesses in search of funds to restart and rebuild. it failed to tackle much-needed

housing reform. and it failed to protect americans from a power-hungry regulation-happy federal government bent on expanding its power. five years later, struggling families, struggling smalling businesses and struggling community banks are the collateral damage of dodd-frank and its thriving washington regulators. the largest institutions have gotten larger. more than 500 community banks have failed. and the number of bank options available to consumers continue to decline due to crushing regulatory burden. this disturbing trend must be reversed. regulation must not be one-size-fits-all. banking regulators should tailor regulations for community banks. those local financial institutions that partner with families and small businesses to help strengthen our communities. decreasing the regulatory burden will allow our nation's financial institutions to devote more time to the needs

of consumers, instead of devoting more time to the whims of regulators like the cfpb. decreasing the regulatory burden will allow local banks to create innovative financial products and services for the benefits of their customers. even as dodd-frank remains in effect, myself and the financial services committee will continue to stand up for americans and stand against an overreaching federal government. on this anniversary of the law, now is the time to recognize and respond to dodd-frank's vast imperfections and also pursue true housing reform that promotes responsible lending and borrowing. again, i want to thank chairman hensarling for his great work and for my colleagues on the financial services committee, and i yield back to the chairman. mr. hensarling: once again i thank the gentleman for his comments. and reminding us yet again that the narrative that the left has

fostered is a false narrative. we were told that there was this massive deregulation that somehow led to all of these bad mortgages and the world was blowing up. but as the gentleman pointed out from illinois, for 10 years we've had increased regulation. it's increased, i believe it was almost 20% more regulations. you had sarbanes-oxley, you had very good acronyms. but we had more and more regulation. it wasn't a lack -- it wasn't deregulation that caused the crisis. it was dumb regulation. dumb regulation by the government that was intenting and cajoling and mandating financial institutions to loan money to people to buy homes that they couldn't afford to keep. what a tragedy. what a tragedy to put somebody in a home they can't afford to keep.

that's the cause. fannie and freddie at the epicenter and the dodd-frank bill was totally silent on the issue. totally silent on the issue. and people suffered. people suffered. i still remember my friends on the other side of the aisle said let's roll the dice a little on this this affordable housing goal of fannie and freddie. well, the dice got rolled and the american people lost and we had the great financial crisis and now they're doubling down, even more regulatory burden dragging down our financial institutions, making us less stable, taking away our freedom and prosperity. and that's just wrong. . it is time for taos replace this law. it is obvious. at this time, i would like to yield to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittinger, and hear his views on dodd-frank as well. i'm happy to yield to the

gentleman from north carolina. mr. pittinger: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your leadership on behalf of the american people to bring opportunity to them. mr. speaker, i do rise today on the fifth anniversary of the burdensome and overreaching dodd frank act. i had built two businesses from scratch. i understand the sacrifice and the hard work necessary to grow a business and create jobs. unfortunately, dodd-frank made it incredibly difficult for american small businesses to raise capital. for the first time in 35 years, small business debts have out-- small business deaths have outnumbered small business births. dodd-frank was supposed to protect the american people. instead, it's hurting the economy and costing jobs particularly low and moderate income families. dodd-frank is strangling the economy. and job growth by creating a compliance nightmare of over 400 now rules and regulations.

i'm not anti-regulation. but the pendulum has swung too far. unfortunately, dodd-frank goes too far, fixing problems that don't exist and ignoring the root cause of the financial crisis which was the government requirement for easy credit for those who were a credit risk. we've all been told that dodd-frank ends too big to fail. this act did not end too big to fail. it glorified it into law and made middle income paychecks almost $12,000 less compared to the average post-war economic recovery. five years later our economy continues to sputter at a 2% growth rate while washington bureaucrats continue to burden american businesses. those small enterprises with never-ending regulations. dodd-frank is detering the entrepreneurship that's made this country great. dodd-frank is too big. it has failed the american people. thank you mr. speaker, and i

yield back. pll hensarling: -- mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i thank him for his work on the committee where he serves as vice chair of the task force. now i'd like to yield to the newest member of the house financial services committee, the gentleman from minnesota although he's new to the committee, it didn't take him too long to figure out, by speaking to his constituents and speaking to his credit unions and community banks, that dodd-frank is not working. that dodd-frank is helping make this economy less stable and making the american people less prosperous and less free. and now i'm very happy to yield to the gentleman from minnesota mr. emmer. mr. emmer: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for inviting me to be part of this special order. mr. speaker, five years ago, the president signed the dodd-frank legislation.

-- legislation into law. the american people were told that dodd-frank would end washington bailouts, protect consumers, and in the event of another perilous economic situation, it would mitt gate the impact and stabilize the financial industry in our -- and our economy. as american families and businesses have now learned, dodd-frank does just the opposite. dodd-frank has actually codified the two too big to fail mentality in washington harmed consumers, and will fail to sound the alarm before the next economic crisis. i've talked with many people in the financial service industry about dodd-frank and the theme i hear over and over again is that the regulatory burdens create by this law are harming their ability to offer affordable services to their compliants, my constituents. since dodd-frank, approximately 1,500 community banks across the country have closed and a recent study shows that

dodd-frank has added 61 million hours of paperwork and more than $24 billion in final rule costs to the financial industry. these costs are not borne by wall street executives but rather by working mothers, small business owners and retirees. this body is not powerless. in fact, i'm here with many of my colleagues tonight, standing up for working families impacted by this flawed law. we should subject this consumer financial protection bureau and financial stability oversight council to congressional appropriations. we should establish a bipartisan commission to lead the cfpb and reduce regulation that's crippling our community banks and credit unions. by enacting commonsense reforms businesses can grow jobs will be created and american workers can bet brother vide for their families. i also want to thank the 146 banks, eight credit unions and nearly 60,000 constituents in my district who provide vital

financial services to minnesotans, despite the ever-growing regulatory burden from washington. again, mr. chairman, i thank you and mr. speaker, i yield back. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for his comments tonight. again, he is obviously a quick study, but it doesn't take long when you speak to your constituents to realize, again there's still -- they're stull -- they're still hurting in this limping economy. when one looks at the president's economic program, it's based on a couple of major pillars. it's based on his health care program or ba macare. it's also based on dodd frank. -- dodd-frank. and in many ways dodd-frank is to household finances what obamacare is to household health care. it's harming low income and working american families. it's hurting their ability to achieve greater levels of economic opportunity. greater levels of financial independence. and so, mr. speaker, we've got

an economy that's limping along at about 2% economic growth, when historically we know it's been at 3 1/2%. the economy is underperforming by 40% and one of the reason it is is because of dodd-frank. you can ask any person who is out there, an entrepreneur, small businessperson who is help creag ate jobs, they'll tell you about this drag that the sheer weight, volume complexity and uncertainty of this tsunami of regulation is causing. and so i'm very happy, mr. speaker, that someone that we have on our committee is a businessperson who has a history of creating jobs in my native state of texas. i'm very happy now at this point to yield to my fellow texan, mr. williams as much time as he may consume to give us his thoughts on dodd-frank as well. mr. williams: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for your

leadership and before i begin, i would like to say i'm a small business owner. i've owned my own business for 44 years. i've been through a lot. i've been through $1 gasoline, i've been through 20% interest where i borrowed money. i've been through the slowdown in 1988 and after 9/11 and i have to tell you, the economy we're in now, main street america is hurting like i've never seen it hurt before. that's why i'm up here to talk about this situation that we seem to honor tonight dodd-frank. i join the chairman and my other colleagues tonight to speak on what i believe is one of the most impulsive deceiving, and un-american pieces of legislation that's ever been passed but this body. what i'm talking about is a 2,300 page law that has unfairly blanketed our

financial system with more than 400 costly rules and regulations. just as we have found out that the affordable care act is not affordable, we are learning that dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act doesn't do what its name suggests. i believe we probably need a government protection act. the dodd--- now dodd-frank is hammering small town america like we talked about, like i've never seen before in 44 years. small town america. main street america is hurting. and they're hurting with unnecessary but very expensive compliance measures that are hard to meet. as a small business owner, of over 40 years, i can say firsthand that dodd-frank is driving main street job creators and community banks and credit unions out of business. yesterday new york our op-ed, congressman randy neugebauer and i wrote that the american people were fooled into believing dodd-frank was necessary to ensure financial stability and prevent future market meltdowns. but instead of responsibly

studying the root causes of the financial crisis, democrats in washington rushed to regulate. in my home state of texas, one of the healthiest economies in the nation 115 banks have closed their doors. these banks are far from the major financial institutions in new york. they are small town, community lenders that cannot full together resources to comply with dodd-frank. they are community banks and credit unions that issue 51% of all business loans under $1 million. the crippling effects of dodd-frank have trickled down from the president's pen to local job creators who had nothing to do with the financial crisis. the costs had been pass aid long to them. it isn't right and it's not fair. dodd-frank is another example of how this administration discourages growth. under president obama and his administration, the risk of running a business is no longer worth the possible reward.

and that's a big problem. this is america. bad policies like dodd-frank are the product of lawmakers who have little to no business experience. they haven't work on payrolls. they haven't made a payroll. they haven't counted inventory. they haven't met with employees that need personal help. they haven't put people to work. but they have done something. issue 153 new regulations. 187 compliance changes. and 59 annual adjustments to thresholds. at what price, we ask. the congressional budget office and government accountability office have both estimated that dodd-frank cost $3 billion to implement and will result in nearly $27 billion in private sector fees assessments, and premiums. we simply can't afford this. for this reason, i have introduced legislation that will loosen dodd-frank's choke hold on small businesses and

main street america. the community financial institution exemption act will require the financial -- the customer financial protection bureau to explain to main street lenders why they are not exempted from certain cfpb rules and regulations as permitted. my bill has the support of the independent bankers association of texas and the texas credit union association. the national association of federal credit unions and the credit union national association. i ask all my colleagues to support my efforts. it's time we stopped punishing those who put their livelihoods on the line to realize the american dream and not the american scheme. i yield back the remainder of my time. in god we trust. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman my fellow texan, for his comments and the perspective he brings as somebody who has actually successfully created jobs in the lone star state.

again he can look around at the customers of his business and to his employees and see how they have lost their prosperity. again mr. speaker, we were told that when dodd-frank was passed, it would lift the economy. they had a great celebration and signing ceremony at the white house. it would lift the economy. well, so what did we discover five years late her what we discovered is an economy that's limping along at 2%. and that's not just some vague statistic. that translates into millions of americans who remain underemployed and unemployed in america. if you ask the people who create the jobs, what's the great challenge? one of the great challenges is this regulatory burden. the question is not so much regulation or deregulation. the question is whether we're going to have smart regulation or dumb regulation. dumb regulation hurts low and

moderate income americans who are just trying to climb the ladder of success, who are seeking economic opportunity. so had we just had the average recovery, the average recovery, mr. speaker, we would have 12.1 million more jobs in america today. the average working family would have an extra $12,000 of income to take home in their pocket. that's just if we had the average recovery as opposed to this obama recovery based upon cod dodd-frank as one of its pillars. we would have had 1.6 million more who could escape poverty. but no, not the obama economy. dodd-frank and the regulatory tsunami is keeping people down. you know, we all hear about this regrettably, every member of congress still gets these letters. i had a letter from one of my constituents that said, quote, there are part-time jobs around

my area but always jobs with no benefits and less than 40 hours. my son is a disabled iraqi freedom combat veteran who has lost hope of a decent full-time job. that's the kind of angst we hear. but house republicans are committed to hetching these people and one of the ways we have to do it is do something about dodd-frank. so i'm very happy that i'm joined by two other of my colleagues tonight, the gentleman from michigan, mr. huizenga who chair ours monetary policy and trade subcommittee, and the gentleman from arizona mr. schweikert, who has a lot of experience with municipal finance in arizona. i'm happy first to yield to the gentleman from michigan to get some of his perspectives on dodd frank and how -- on dodd-frank and how we are less stable, less prosperous and less free. . mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to have a couple of questions for new a minute, like my colleague and friend

from -- in main. i like my colleague and friend from arizona, we weren't here when dodd-frank was created. i wasn't here for the creation of it. i just have to live with the echo effects of it and have to figure out what it means in this post-dodd-frank world. by the way it's been mentioned tonight 2,300 pages. sounds a little reminiscent to another bill that maybe had to pass to find out what was in it. and i think if it wasn't for obamacare, the affordable care act and that famous statement that was uttered about having to pass it to find out what's in it, this would be the poster child for that. this would be the poster child for federal government overreach. it was an agenda waiting for a crisis to come along. mr. hensarling: would the gentleman yield on that point? i was here five years ago and it is funny and reminiscent that senator dodd, the co-author of dodd-frank, the dodd of dodd-frank said at the time, quote, no one will know until this is actually in place

how it works. he said that in 2010. here we are five years later and we know how it works. we know it is a drag on the economy. we know that free checks hand been cut in half. we know that bank fees have gone up. we know that we are losing a community bank and a credit union a day. mostly because of dodd-frank. mr. huizenga: i think that i have to disagree a little bit with you. we know that there's a tremendous amount of dodd-frank that we have seen play out. but this is something i'm not sure everybody understands. they're still writing the rules. five years into it, we're still writing the rules. i don't think that was your intent, was it, at the time that this was passed? mr. hensarling: it was never my intent to support the law in the first place. under then ranking member spencer bachus of alabama my predecessor republicans had put forward a different law. and it was about bankruptcy as opposed to bailouts.

instead what dodd-frank did was codify bailouts into law. it codified this whole concept of too big to fail institutions. i believe there's not one financial institution in america that's too big to fail. the american financial system is too big to fail. but not one particular financial institution. so we offered a different law in the first place which was totally ignored by the democrats at the time -- democrats. at the time they enjoyed a supermajority. so we were left with this particular monstrosity that, again, is making the american people less prosperous. i thank the gentleman for his question. maybe we can get a comment from the gentleman from arizona. mr. schweikert: one of the most painful things, when i first got elected, i was blessed to be on the financial services committee and i spent that summer trying to read every word of the dodd-frank

legislation. and what you learn is, even reading the legislation, you don't understand all it's going to do because it refers to this agency will make this rule set this regulate already create this rule set -- set, this regulator will create this rule set. you start to realize that 2,300 pages is taller than i am. and it's still coming. mr. chairman, what percentage of the rules that's been finished so far? mr. hensarling: a little over 60%, five years later. i thank the gentleman for yielding. but in some respects, nothing is finalized because when we think about being less free, in many respects dodd-frank isn't even a law. dodd-frank is a license to unelected, unaccountable federal bureaucrats to create discretionary rules. that they can change at their discretion. so even the rules that are

unquote-unquote finalized which is kind of a washington term, you still don't have something that is predictable, that you can count on, and so it's led to all of these abuses. i mean when you think about the people who have run our veterans administration, the people who did the rollout for obamacare, you know, health care system that people didn't want, they couldn't afford, on a website -- on a website that didn't work, all of a sudden we're entrusting them to decide whether or not we can get a credit card whether or not we can get a mortgage. and so in that respect, you know, no rule is particularly finalized. mr. schweikert: i know chairman huizenga has looked at some of these things. one of the other aspects that almost never gets discussed is innovation is almost gone. the opportunity to -- what is the next world going to look like? think of this. when apple pays comes from a

technology company and not one of our banking companies, you got to understand what this law has done. it has basically stifled economic growth, but it's also stifled the very innovation that had made our financial markets one of our engines of growth. mr. huizenga: if the gentleman will yield. i want to portray or relay a little experience i had just today. i was speaking in front of a group of european parliament members and a few european business folks and this question was brought up about trying to harmonize our financial services laws and trying to make sure that we're all kind of on the same page. and one of the members from a very liberal left-wing party was asking about dodd-frank and whether that's a path that they should pursue. and even she was dubious about that. certainly some of the other members from the european parliament were seeing that this is a cautionary tale.

they know that they've been down a tough spot in europe because they've seen such a lack of growth and innovation. and they're seeing that exact same thing here, happen in the united states. i yield. mr. schweikert: let's face it. there's a wonderful irony here. the system has great stress. horrible things happen. let's turn to the very regulators who were in charge at that time and say, let's double down with them. instead of taking a step backwards and understanding we live in the time of information and technology where we could have used that sunshine to see into our markets. instead we basically created a command and control regulatory system and handed it back to the same folks who screwed it up in the first place. mr. huizenga: certainly you're not implying that they're not well-intended. mr. schweikert: think about this. how much reform has truly happened at fannie and freddie?

where are we at right now? i know the apologists on the left go out of their way to say, oh, don't blame the g.s.c.'s and their concentration risk and the cascade and the markets they built in subprime paper. and oh, don't blame the regulaters who are supposed to be watching them. and here we are five years later and in many ways the folks who soaked themselves in gasoline are still there. mr. huizenga: it somes -- seems to me that part of our problem here is not intentions, but it's ability to execute. and what we've done is we have replaced the private sector, we've replaced the innovators, the people that are getting stuff done in our economy, and we've replaced them with unelected bureaucrats who don't often know what the real world is like. and how it operates. and i think that has caused so many problems. mr. hensarling: if the gentleman would yield. it's a very important point. because america has always been the land of the risk taker.

the hard worker, the big dreamer. the entrepreneur. and now what we're seeing in america today because of dodd-frank and the obama regulatory tsunami, is that we are having new business startups at their lowest level in over a generation. and that means increasingly our garages are full of old cars as opposed to new startups. and economic growth is something that compounds. and if you don't have economic growth and then american families can't grow, again, they lose sleep at night worrying about how are they going to pay their bills, how are they going to cover their checks, what will their children's future be for those who still have checking accounts because another result of dodd-frank is that bank fees have gone up. and as bank fees have gone up the unbanked lower and

moderate income americans, those ranks have gron -- ranks have grown. according to the fdic nine million households don't have a checking or savings account. and that's because account fees are too high or unpredictable. most of this courtesy of dodd-frank. another way it hurts hardworking american families is or yellian-named consumer protection bureau, where there is now one national credit nanny, has come up with a rule called the qualified mortgage rule that the federal reserve says, once fully phased in 1/3, 1/3 of black and hispanic borrowers will find themselves disqualified. for not meeting washington's rigid one-size-fits-all debt to income requirements. we're losing our entrepreneurs, we're losing our small businesses, low and moderate income people are falling behind because dodd-frank

didn't keep the promise of lifting the economy. i'd be happy to yield back to the gentleman. mr. huizenga: i've got a question for you. because i've had an experience in my time. my third term here in congress. i've had a little bit of an experience that was bothersome to me. i want to know if this matches your expectations as well. you talked about this qualified mortgage. i have a piece of legislation called the mortgage choice act that rules that were written under the dodd-frank act, in an attempt to protect people from being gounled, i believe is actually doing the opposite -- gouged, i believe is actually doing the opposite the. it's not just me. it was a bipartisan group that got together to put this piece of legislation together that last congress passed this house in this chamber unanimously. now, the american people watching out there, yes, things actually pass unanimously here. you're not going to hear about that in the news a whole lot. but we can work together. now, there's one disturbing thing, though. it passed the house unanimously. went over r over to the senate and there was one particular senator who put the brakes on

it. not to name any names but she didn't want any changes to her baby, dodd-frank act. so we had to re-introduce the bill. as the chairman well knows, we got it into committee again, now suddenly it went from being unanimous to being a divisive issue. and that was certainly not anything on our part because it was the exact same language. but people who had decided a year ago this was the exact way to go have decided for political purposes that it is now something that can't be touched, can't be altered, can't be even addressed. i'm sure the chairman has some thoughts on to whether that is working. mr. hensarling: it's a very -- i thank the gentleman for yielding yet again. and for his regrettably accurate observation. and that is, i try not to question the motives of my colleagues, but, you know, something is awry when something goes through the house unanimously and then just a matter of weeks to a couple of months later then all of a

sudden it becomes a very divisive issue. so my fare is that -- fear is that the left hand doesn't always know what the far left hand is doing and the far left hand has decided that dodd-frank is sacred text. not wbd stag the fact that five -- notwithstanding the fact that five years late we are understand that free checking has been cut in half. five years later we understand that bank fees are going up. five years later we understand that the ranks of the unbanked, of our low and moderate income people you know, who need to be able to have access to credit when you need $500 to repair your car to get to work on monday, you need $500 to repair your car to get to work on monday. and yet for many, it is clear, it is clear that dodd-frank has become a matter of brand protection, of ideology, and it really doesn't matter how many people suffer. that is so sad. i have strong thoughts on the matter. but i'll sit down and reason in good faith, and compromise policy in order to advance

principles on behalf of the american people. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. huizenga: you just hit on a word of compromise. i think there's many of us that are looking to compromise. i was disturbed, and i'm curious to hear the thoughts from my colleague from arizona when we were sitting in committee and had a witness in front of us who characterized the dodd-frank act as a compromise bill. and it struck me, compromise bill. i guess, you know i guess maybe he's right. it was a compromise between senator dodd and congressman frank at the time. both democrats who didn't bother to get any input from the republicans. as you pointed out, mr. chairman, you actually had a bill. now, a compromise would have been to take parts of your bill and parts of their bills and marry them together. that isn't what happened, did it? mr. hensarling: no. republicans were frozen out. it was what democrats wanted to do. so they can own this particular bill. that, again is making america

less stable. it makes it less stable because the big banks are bigger and the small banks are fewer. dodd-frank has concentrated more financial assets in fewer institutions. it's a pillar of the president's economic program that is causing working families to have stagnant paychecks and lower bank accounts, that's assuming they have a bank account. because the ranks of the unbanked have increased, which has made us less free. we have one national consumer credit czar who decides now it's washington, washington decides whether or not you can have a credit card washington decides whether or not you can have a mortgage, washington now decides whether or not you can get a small business line of credit. i haven't even talked about this thing called the financial stability oversight council, that for all intents and purposes now has the ability to control huge swaths of our economy by defining vegas terms as system -- vague terms as

stnlic risk. i yield to the gentleman from arizona for his thoughts. . >> you have hit on one of -- mr. schweikert: you have hit on one of the great ironies we have in our committee. the way dodd-frank is designed, it's designed for the last problem it's not forward-looking of what does the future look like? then there's the air fwans here in washington of thinking we know what the future looks like. but there's also a number of the professionals in the industry and academia are now writing about what they call concentration risk. what happens when you tell every bank that they can only hold certain assets? you now have a concentration risk if something goes wrong in that asset category, the cascade effect is universal. this is now happening up and down our financial system. in many ways, i can make you a

powerful argument that the post-dodd-frank world is creating a banking system that ultimately is more fragile because of the contagion concentration risk. mr. hensarling: it is in some respects deja vu all over again. it is dangerous for government to have one view of risk, one view of risk. and the regulators told all the banks that there was virtually no risk in mortgage backed securities, no risk in sovereign debt, so you don't have to reserve practically any capital against those. think fannie, freddie and greek bonds and it almost brought down the entire national financial system, and we're obviously repeating the same mistakes. so i appreciate the gentleman from arizona for his observation. mr. schweikert: if the gentleman will yield, i know we've probably got three or four minutes before a quick hour has gone by here. but i go back to my intention

here and the question i've got for the chairman, obviously a lot of well-intentioned things, where there's some issues and problems abuses, absolutely. i was in real estate industry myself. still am. in construction. but the goal of having dodd-frank lift our economy, promote financial stability and too big to fail, it certainly doesn't seem leek that from the perspective that i am. i think all the evidence is overwhelmingly, the answer is a resounding no on all counts. and i'd love to hear the chairman's thoughts on that evidence. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker may i inquire how much time is remaining? three minutes? thank you mr. speaker. again new york many respects the -- again, in many respects, i do believe the economy is more fragile. the good news is more of our financial institutions are hold manager capital, they are more

liquid, but what's ironic is the regulators prior to dodd-frank had all the regulatory authority they needed to have made these balance sheets even safer. but yet there's been no effort on the part of the administration, not withstanding the good work of our economy, to do anything about fannie and freddie that were at the epicenter of the crisis. again this whole government idea of putting people into homes that ultimately they cannot afford to keep. it's terrible for them. it's bad for the tax pay . it's bad for the economy. we have to move to a sustainable housing system. sustainable for homeowners. sustainable for the economy. certainly sustainable for taxpayers. mr. huizenga: i used to be a licensed realtor i will never forget the lime in the late 1990's, when i went to my first closing where they slid a check, the closing agent slid a check across to the seller as

expected, they're selling the home, and then slid a check across to the buyer. and there was a nervous laugh and a joke. we know you're probably going to need some furniture. that was the first time i personally witnessed someone borrowing more than what the house was actually worth. and it's those kinds of decisions and that lack of risk that lack of accountability that i think brought us to some of the areas. i just wanted to relay that story of something that was just seared into my mind one i hope we never, ever repeat. mr. hensarling: if the gentleman will yield, i fear the obama administration is making the same mistake. that's why we need the financial housing system. ultimately with we're working for as house luns is -- republicans is to make sure all americans have greater economic opportunity. that means competitive innovative, transparent financial markets. that means an economy that's fair and works for everyone. it means getting out of the

bail out business once and for all. there ought to be bruppings for these financial institutions, not taxpayer bailouts. we need all americans to be able to climb the ladder of success. that means they need access to bank accounts. they need to go back and have access to the free checking which they lost under dodd-frank. we need community banks to prosper for our rural areas for our inner cities. all that can happen yet again but it all starts, it all starts with having to replace dodd-frank, which is a clearly failed law, five years later. it didn't meet its promises. we are less stable. we are less prosperous. and we are less free. house republicans are putting forth a different plan today just as we did five years ago. the evidence is stark. the evidence is stark. that the big banks are bigger. the small banks are fewer and hard working americans are

worse off. i appreciate the time we've had with our colleagues. it's time to replace dodd-frank. thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. honda, for 30 minutes. mr. honda: thank you mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. honda: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i come to the floor today as the founder and co-chair of the congressional ethiopian american caucus this caucus was established to give a legislative voice to the specific concerns of ethiopian american community. founded in 2001, the caucus is comprised of members who appreciate the critical

relationship between ethiopia and the u.s. and value the contributions of ethiopian americans to our nation. congressman john garamendi and i co-chair this caucus of nearly 20 members of congress. president obama's upcoming visit to ethiopia on july 27, next monday, will be the very first visit to this nation of 97 million people by a sitting american president. ethiopia has africa's second largest population and is a nation with a rich, independent cultural history. and by the way ethiopia is the only african country in that continent that has not ever been colonized. it is a country of growing economic, human tanche and strategic importance to the united states. accompanying these opportunities are many challenges that face ethiopia today. situated at the center of the horn of africa, ethiopia is

located in a -- an unstable region, making it a key component of combating terrorists in the region. i believe that president obama's upcoming trip to ethiopia provides a unique opportunity to promote respect for freedom of speech and press. in addition to supporting economic health food security, and humanitarian development in eethyopia. the united states must aggressively support and encourage ethiopia to embrace democracy and its hallmarks, free speech and a free and independent media. with a base of young entrepreneurs a large labor force, and a wealth of natural resources, ethiopia has quickly become an important center of industry, agriculture and technology. we must explore avenues for u.s. investment and

partnerships with ethiopia to further this growing economic partnership. here at home, ethiopians in the u.s. provide us with a large pool of talent, education, experience. if we are to draw lessons from u.s. relations with china, vietnam and indonesia, we can see that engage 789 is an important tool in bringing about sustainable change. the u.s. and ethiopian governments must work closely to engage private business and ethiopians in the dies a pr para. -- in the diaspora. if we have learned anything about ethiopia and the ethiopians, it is to never discount their capacity for genius and resolve in the interest of their country and fellow countrymenism visited ethiopia in 2005 and left the country a changed man. the ethiopian diaspora's forward thinking and vision continue to inspire me. numbering over a quarter million people across this

country, the vibrant and fast-growing ethiopian american community greatly contributes to the richness of american culture and strengthens our economy to help make our nation competitive in the 21st century. and as i travel around ethiopia and met people from all walks of life who are bound by one truth, criminal their own -- to control their own destiny, i was inspired more than ever to strengthen a long-established relationship between ethiopia and the u.s. and become an effective voice to encourage lasting democratic humanitarian and security improvements and partnerships with our friends in the horn of africa. as president obama prepared for his upcoming trip to africa in the coming days, many human rights groups are criticizing his crit to ethiopia as one that props up and supports a repressive regime. a goth that has been censoring and intimidating the media and even imprisons journalists who spoke out against the ruling

ethiopian party. since 2014, six privately owned media outlets have shut down due to government harassment of over two dozen journalists and bloggers who have faced criminal charges and at least 30 others have fled the country to avoid arrest. more journalists are in jail in ethiopia than anywhere else in africa. this crackdown and the use of anti-terrorism legislation to stifle political dissent in ethiopia is absolutely unacceptable. the state department has publicly and privately expressed concerns about ethiopian restrictions on political and human rights. these issues present complicated diplomatic engagement and security cooperation scenarios. stability, security, and economic development are sustainable only with the development of democratic values. ethiopia has a long road ahead to fully achieve these goals. but with our support and the support of the ethiopian caucus, we can help them move

closer to those ideals. over the past month in the run-up to president obama's visit, the ethiopian government has released half a dozen journalists and bloggers who are being held on dubious charges. while this is a positive step, this does not forgive or cause us to overlook the restrictive and undemocratic pressures on the media in ethiopia. the government's recent action of good faith -- recent actions are good faith are not an achievement but rather represent the first step in a long toward the government demonstrating it can embrace a free and open demok democracy with a vibrant and free press. i believe the u.s. can be most effective at championing human rights and democratic institutions in ethiopia through engagement. the u.s. must build on obama's historic visit and work harder to encourage positive change as a -- change. as a partner we can have frank conversations with the government and champion human rights and democratic

principles. ethiopia is a young country in terms of democracy and over time we can help shape their maturing political system in a way that provides real choices for this -- for the people. the ethiopian government needs to continue to uphold democratic principles and engagement while at the same time reconciling the need for security with increasing opportunities to engage talented ethiopians. i stand with amnesty international and call for the immediate and unconditional release of any and all remaining journalists and bloggers who remain in prison based on politically motivated convictions on terrorism charges. as a friend to the people of ethiopia, it is our responsibility to encourage the present government to stick to this reform. as the u.s. pursues closer economic and strategic relationships with ethiopia, we must remain adamant that improvements to human rights and democratic institutions are

a requirement to a successful partnership. ethiopians -- ethiopia is a valuable partner in the region from peace keeping to fighting or to pursuing peace in south sudan. in recreant year, the number of attacks performed by extremists across the horn of africa has been increasing ethiopia has been a vital partner in confronting extremism in the region. u.s. national scommurt is intertwined with countries like ethiopia that are on the front line of fighting terrorism. the -- they require the support of the united states government in building and helping them for the stability that will allow democratic institutions to grow and flourish. ethiopia has historically been a key contributor to united nations and african union peacekeeping missions and as the seat of the african union has taken an active role in

trying to bring peace to the region and the continent. . to this end ethiopia gets nearly $800 million a year in military assistance to fight the somali islamic group al-shabab a group that is responsible for numerous attacks across the region. as we invest hundreds of millions to combat this brutal extremist group, we must remember that military strength alone will not defeat extremism. the only lasting solution is a comprehensive one that addresses the political and economic concerns of the region. one in which the rights of all religious and cultural groups are respected. i encourage president obama to work with the ethiopiaans kenyans and somali governments to find ways to dreals the underlying social and economic -- to address the underlying social and economic sthoose are resulting in -- issues that are resulting in al-shabab. ethiopia has undergone amazingly economic growth in

recent years and made significant progress toward its millennium development goals. the u.s. must continue to support ethiopia's development goals and crease opportunities for u.s. businesses -- and in crease opportunities for u.s. businesses in the region. the ethiopiaan economy has enjoyed strong economic growth with average g.d.p. growth over 10% in the past decade. double the average for subsaharan africa. now, this -- sub-saharan africa. this has largely been because of government policies with an emphasis on public investment, commercialization of agriculture and nonfarm private sector development. as part of this growth ethiopia has prioritized infrastructure development. ethiopia is investing heavily in physical infrastructure as part of its development strategy. this includes the development

upgrading of the country's power transport and telecommunications facilities with a brand new railway network and the construction of a number of hydroelectric power stations. these investments will alout country to continue to export power to neighboring countries. ethiopia has also proven to be a partner in renewable energy development. their hydro program are helping move ethiopia to become the climate resilient economy by 2025. ethiopia has a second highest hydro power generating capacity in africa and the continent's biggest wind farm. these renewable resources have enabled ethiopia to export to kenya and sudan, despite having limited hydrocarbonen resources. this incredible -- hydrocarbon resources. this incredible growth has not gone unnoticed by the rest of the world and numerous developed nations including

china and india are investing hevenly in ethiopia -- heavily in ethiopia. india is the biggest invester in land in ethiopia. with indian companies accounting for almost 70% of the land acquired by foreigners. the u.s. government needs to do more to encourage american companies to invest in ethiopia. with the second largest population, ethiopia's a huge market for american companies and products. self-imposed congressional limitations on programs like opec the overseas private investment corporations are severely hindering u.s. investments into this economy. self-imposed congressional limitations severely hindering u.s. investment in this economy. we have to remember that -- we have to remember. that according to figures from the world bank investments into ethiopia has risen more than 10 fold in seven years. from $108 million no 2008 to

$1.2 billion in 2014. with $1.5 billion projected for 2015. a significant portion of this investment growth is represented by chinese investment in ethiopia ramping up. this includes a new $200 million african union headquarters financed by china, a $300 million contract to expand the airport, and construction of a reported $2 billion factory for china's corporation, which will employ 30,000 ethiopians. it is critical that the u.s. government mobilizes private sector capital to address these development challenges or other countries will. despite all this economic growth eekt has significant challenges -- ethiopia has significant challenges. ethiopia's per capita g.d. of $505, one of the world's lowest though per capita g.d.p. is on the rise $7 --

7.% in 2014 it is still -- 7.2% in 2014, it is still one of the poorest countries in the world, ranking 173 out of 187 countries on a human development index. although ethiopia's outperforming many sub-saharan countries, in poverty reduction, widespread malnutrition continues to haunt the nation. estimates suggest that countries -- the country loses about 16.5% of its g.d.p. each year to the long-term effects of malnutrition. child malnutrition. agriculture, coffee in particular leaves a large rural population vulnerable to droughts, natural disasters and other economic shots. now, recent periods of rapid inflationary pressures and large refugee inflows from south sudan further aggravate these trends. this has led to food prices rising 100% in 2011.

ethiopia still relies heavily on aid to achieve its development goals. ethiopia receives the most usaid assistance of any sub-saharan african country, ranked seven worldwide. it remains the single largest recipient of official developmental assistance in sub-saharan africa. they've made progress toward reaching most of the millennial development goals together with strong government action and the largest social protection scheme in the region ethiopia has seen remarkable progress toward its development targets. apart from the overall decline of poverty, reduced by 33% since 2000, positive gains have been made in terms of education , health and reducing the prevalence of hiv-aids and fist la. usaid development funds and programs are having a massive impact in ethiopia and

everything from -- in everything from nutrition sustainability, food stability, health and education. so u.s. businesses, entrepreneurs also have a strong ethiopia. organizations like the u.s.--africa business council focus on tapping into the large entrepreneurial ethiopia and african populations in the u.s. they help provide information, bill capacity and development infrastructure to assist u.s. companies to build business footprints in ethiopia and develop trade between the u.s. and africa. i would like to particularly highlight the budding benefit corporation that are producing a positive impact on society and the environment as well as making a profit. ethiopia company, blessed coffee, the nation's second benefit corporation, is established as a socially responsible business focusing

on trade in coffee growing regions as well as in communities in the u.s. where coffee is sold. a similar by otic relationship will be one that not only benefits american consumers, but also the farmers in ethiopia and the development of the region. on a side note, i'm not sure that it's well known, but according to analysis, all coffee came from ethiopia. so we can thank them for that. i was proud to help re-authorize the african growth an opportunity act last month pavings the way for continued investment in ethiopia and of a can through preference duty-free treatment to u.s. imports of certain products. this important bill incentivizes american companies to invest in industry and development programs in africa and ethiopia that provide products to the united states and jobs to the region. as a representative from silicon valley, i take special note of the large opportunities

in high technology and internet fields, with just over 2% internet penetration and 27% cellular phone subscriptions, ethiopia has one of the lowest rates of internet and mobile phone penetration in the world. persistent state interventions including nationwide internet filtering public sector monopoly over the telecom sector and a relatively close economy have suppressed the growth of economic freedom over the last five years. all of this points to an opportunity for the u.s. government and companies to help ethiopia modernize and open its markets to american tech companies. in closing, let me just say that ethiopia's a nation of growing importance and opportunity for the united states. a reality that is highlighted by president obama's next week's visit. as one of the poorest countries yet with one of the fastest growing economies and large population in africa, ethiopia still represents enormous untapped potential for economic

growth. ethiopia's a country where american companies can invest and bring jobs and development. it is a critical -- it is critical that the u.s. government seizes this opportunity for investment and mobilizes private sector capital to address the development challenges ethiopia faces. additionally, the u.s. has an opportunity to help ethiopia address the numerous humanitarian challenges it dayses. the administration's feed the future initiative supports ethiopia's food security strategy to reduce hunger, improve nutrition and promote broad-based economic growth. ethiopia still has many serious unmet development needs in sectors like small business lending, private education, health care and access to electricity. healthy bilateral aid programs through usaid and development programs like power africa can help make significant improvements into the health and food security of millions of people in ethiopia.

notwithstanding ethiopia's enormous development needs, we must secure ties within the country to reen-- reinforce its constructive collaboration with the u.s. on regional security issues in the horn of africa. ethiopia's ongoing strategic partnership with the united states in combating al-shabab and defeat extremism in the horn of africa is an opportunity for the united states to change the narrative in the region away from focusing solely on military solutions and instead focusing on a comprehensive approach that addresses the underlying social, economic and political causes that fuels extremism grooms. these are sustainable only with the development of democratic values. ethiopia is a young democracy where human rights and freedom of speech is not respected by the ruling government. the united states must take a strong position of standing with democratic institutions

such as free speech and open, fair transparent elections. the u.s. must build on obama's historic visit and work harder to encourage positive change. as a partner we can have frank conversations with the government and champion human rights and democratic principles. ethiopia's a young country in terms of democracy and over time we can help shape the maturing political system in a way that provides real choices for the people. the ethiopia diaspora here in the united states are the natural bridges and ambassadors and the human resources to build and strengthen the economic and strategic humanitarian connections between our nations. the future looks extremely bright for ethiopia and the united states has an opportunity to be a stronger partner as it moves toward a wealthier more secure and more democratic future. i am proud to be the co-chair of the ethiopian-american caucus -- ethiopian american caucus where i can help give a legislative voice to the