mr. welch: that's got to be a discussion. there's no specifics here. so you're making -- we don't have a bill in front of us. mr. mcguire: there are some process improvements in the energy bill in conference. but the ones we're talking about, the major reforms, there's not -- mr. welch: what would be helpful for me is if each of you did like a one-page bullet point assessment of concrete things that you think in the process would improve it. then we can assess it, have a discussion. we can talk to d.o.e., how does that work? would it improve it or not? what's the down side? we're just having this real abstract discussion here. regulations i think are really important and it can be really beneficial, but they also, if they're not done right, can have a lot of down side to them with no upside. ms. noll, how about you? ms. noll: i would be happy to do that. i would also encourage us to look at some of these, where the process is working. i think dish washers is an example of that. where d.o.e. heard from industry and congress granted them the authority to

mr. welch: i yield such time as she may consume to the ranking member of the committee. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. chairman. i join the chairman in supporting the gentleman's amendment. this amendment would add approximately 30 lacktation rooms to the capitol complex. working mothers rely on these rooms and i can speak from experience, to ensure that they can continue to work while breastfeeding their children. this amendment rightfully recognizes that congress must lead by example to ensure that women can be both moms and leaders in their field. in fact, my own office right now is serving as a lactation room and that's because one of my wonderful staff is a nursing mom. unfortunately, while i'm happy to do that, it is our responsibility to maintain an environment where all of our employees feel comfortable, including working mothers. our staff deserves to feel welcome and secure when they are ready to return to work. we should be doing everything we can to encourage working moms to return to the workplace

and, again, mr. welch, i just want to again yield to you in terms what have your thoughts are about the last 22 hours. and claims there is a constitutional obstacle for us moving forward. mr. courtney: well, thank you very much for your the horrendous their grammar school, elementary school. you know, my colleagues, this has been a long night. but it has been a good night. the majority has left town. we have been heard. it is not so much we've been heard, the american people have been heard. and you know, what you said about the constitution, we all revere the constitution, but saying the constitution prohibits us to act is bogus. in fact, we have a responsibility to act. in fact, the whole separation of powers, it's ultimately up to the supreme court to decide whether it's within the bounds of the constitution. and there's no right that's absolute. but there's one right that's essential and it's even greater than the constitution. it's the right of a parent to love a child. it's the right of a person to l

mr. welch. ms. lujan grisham. ms. lujan grisham votes yes. chairman chaffetz: how is mr.osar of arizona recorded? >> mr. gosar of arizona is not recorded. mr. gosar votes no. chairman chaffetz: have all members voted? clerk will report the tally. >> on this vote, there are 15 yea's and 21 nay's. haveman chaffetz: the no's it. the question is now on house resolution 737. >> mr. chairman, i have a parliamentary inquiry. chairman chaffetz: parliamentary inquiry. chairman chaffetz: what is your inquiry? >> mr. chairman, the question really has to do with what this resolution does and does not do. on may 18, you said the resolution requires the forfeiture of mr. koskinen's pension, or to quote your words, "requires the forfeiture of his pension," and for today's markup of your resolution, you said, requires forfeiture of his government pension and any other federal benefits for which he is eligible. that is what the website says. now -- chairman chaffetz: what is the parliamentary inquiry? >> is it not true that this resolution really expresses the sense of the house that he s

mr. welch. ms. lujan grisham. ms. lujan grisham votes yes. how is mr.affetz: gose are of arizona recorded? >> mr. gosar of arizona is not recorded. mr. gosar votes no. chairman chaffetz: have all members voted? clerk will report the tally. >> on this vote, there are 15 yea's and 21 nay's. chairman chaffetz: the question is now on house resolution 737. >> mr. chairman, i have a parliamentary inquiry. chairman chaffetz: what is your inquiry? chairman, the question really has to do with what this resolution does and does not do. on may 18, you said the resolution requires the forfeiture of mr. koskinen's pension, or to quote your words, requires the forfeiture of his and for today's markup of your resolution, you said, requires forfeiture of his government pension and any other federal benefits for which he is eligible. that is what the website says. now -- chairman chaffetz: what is the parliamentary inquiry? >> is it not true that this resolution expresses the sense of the house that he should forfeit his pension and that this is a resolution,

the chair: the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, is recognized. mr. welch: may i inquire how much time remains? the chair: the the gentlewoman from hawaii controls 2 1/2 minutes. mr. welch: thank you. mr. speaker, first of all i want to thank congresswoman gabbard. she's got a practical, battle tested basis of experience to propose this amendment. she served a tour in iraq. she served in kuwait. this is not a question about whether the proponents of this amendment reserve any desire to go after isis in any way that we can. nor do it mean that we want to restrict our help to responsible partners like the kurdish peshmerga. what this is about is identifying a program it that was designed for failure. it was predicted by congresswoman gabbard that this train and assist program for unidentified syrian allies, so-called, would fail. and it would fail because we didn't have a nation state we were dealing with. it's a good program when it's with a responsible government or when trying to be a responsible government. maybe in afghanistan, maybe in iraq. what w

mckinley has worked with mr. welch to demonstrate trait the bipartisanship in this area is still alive to some degree. regrettablebly that seems to be the only republican support for major efficiency legislation in this congress. consider the recent house vote to go to congress on an energy package that would actually increase consumption by rolling back efficiency. again, how times have changed. could the fsht standard setting process use improvement? of course it could. because there is always room for improvement. despite a revisionist view that disputes efficiency standards over new development the fact is that the standard setting process has always yielded some controversy from one industry participant or another. but these controversies were generally worked out and the results were better products, more efficiency, and often useful changes to the standard setting process. my concern is that improvements simply may not be possible in this current koung. last year when we were working to forge a bipartisan compro

mckinley has worked with mr. welch to make sure bipartisan is still alive to some degree but regrettably that seems to be the only republican support for major efficiency legislation in this congress considering the recent house vote to go to conference on an energy package that would increase consumption by rolling back efficiency. again how times have change. could the efficiency standards use improvement? of course it could. because there is always room for improvement. despite a revisionist few that dispute over efficiency tand ards or a new development, the standards setting process has yielded controversy from one industry participate or another and the result is better products and more efficiency and often useful changes to the standards-setting process. my concern is that improvement might not be possible in this current congress. last year when we were working on a compromise for furnace standards less than forth right positions taken by certain stakeholders may question the so-called reform efforts. maybe it

mcnerney, mr. welch and ranking member bobby rush. in particular, the house amendment gives the secretary of transportation for the first time ever emergency order authority to address the threats to public health, safety and the environment posed by dangerous pipelines on the comprehensive industrywide basis. it also changes the existing pipeline safety emergency information grant program to make sure technical assistance grants to communities and nonprofit organizations. and i'm pleased the legislation improves protection of coastal beaches and marine coastal waters, areas that are vital to my district and many others by explicitly designating them as areas unusually sensitive to the environmental damage caused by pipeline failure. it also contains a provision establishing a program for regulating underground natural gas storage facilities. i don't need additional time. i just want to urge passage of the bill. thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserve

massie of kentucky, mr. welch of vermont, mr. rigell of virginia, and mr. nolan of minnesota, that works to ensure the appropriate use of american taxpayer dollars in afghanistan. this amendment is in keeping with the clear position of the house. as we have voted several times in bipartisan fashion to limit funds for the afghanistan infrastructure fund, a program which has been poorly run and is lacking in oversight. last year the house passed my bipartisan amendment that would have prevented the department of defense from redirecting $50 million in funds from the afghanistan security forces fund to the afghanistan infrastructure fund. unfortunately the fiscal year retain the did not house language and provided d.o.d. the authority to obligate funds for the afghanistan infrastructure fund through the end of fiscal year 2017. my current amendment would turn off this authority. mr. chairman, we have spent billions of dollars toward rebuilding the infrastructure of afghanistan. in fact, congress has provided $1.3 billion to the afghanistan infrastructure fund,

. >> mr. welch. >> no. >> have all members voted? the clerk will report the tally. >> on this vote there are 23 yays and 15 nays. >> the ayes have it and is ordered favorably reported. without objection, motion to reconsider is laid on the table. sorry, we had already called the vo vote. understood. without objection, the motion is laid on the table. without objection to pursuant to clause 2-l, members will have two days to submit views on the resolution considered today. the staff be allowed to make necessary changes to the resolution ordered reported today subject to the approval of the minority. hearing no objection, so ordered. if there's no further business, the committee stands adjourned. >>> this afternoon the state department's special envoy for libya will be on capitol hill to testify about u.s. policy in libya. we'll have live coverage as he answers questions from senate foreign relations committee members at 2:15 eastern. tomorrow we'll have live coverage as cia director john bren nontestifies on the agen agency's intellig

mckip lee has worked with mr. welch to demonstrate the bipartisan shipp of this to some degree, yet regrettably that seems to be the only republican support for major efficiency legislation in this congress. consider the recent house votes to go to conference on an energy package that would increase consumption by rolling back efficiency. again, how times have changed. could the efficiency standards setting process use improvement? of course it could. there's always room for improvement. would te a revision that reduce efficiency standards are a new development, the fact is the standard setting process has always yielded controversy from one industry participant or another. the conflicts were worked out and resulted in often useful standards to the -- changes to the standard setting process. my point is, solution mace not be possible in this congress. when we were working to find a bipartisan compromise last year, the positions taken by certain stake holders made me question the possibility. what some stake holders view

the chair recognizes the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, for five minutes. >> thank you very much. this is a great panel. appreciate it. couple of things. we don't have a bill yet, right? so this is kind of an abstract discussion? and i thought mr. shimkus kind of laid out the potential for cooperation here. i do like the notion of collaboration in the process because you've got folks at d.o.e. who are doing their best to implement efficiency standards. you've got real world folks that are the manufacturers that have to contend with the very practical issues of implementation. i mean, ms. noll, you're okay with that, right? >> yes. >> i mean, i think standards are incredibly important. i don't think they're everything. mr. cosgriff, you mentioned that the standard in some cases does spur innovation but if you've got something that's highly efficient then it's not going to accomplish all that much. i mean, a lot of what you're saying sounds very reasonable to me. the jobs issue i think it really is all -- it's not so much the jobs issue. i

mckinley has worked with mr. welch to demonstrate bipartisan in his area is still alive to some degree, but regrettably that seems to be the only republican support for major efficiency legislation in this congress considering the recent house vote to go to conference on an energy package that would increase consumption by rolling back efficiency. again how times have changed. could the efficiency standards use improvement? of course it could. because there is always room for improvement. despite a revisionist view that dispute over efficiency standards or a new development the standards setting process has yielded controversy from one industry participate or another these controversies were worked out and the result is better products and more efficiency and often useful changes to the standards-setting process. my concern is that improvement simply may not be possible in this current congress. last year when we were working to forge a bipartisan compromise on furnace standards the less than forthright positions taken

the chair recognizes the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, for five minutes. >> thank you very much. this is a great panel. appreciate it. couple of things. we don't have a bill yet, right? so this is kind of an abstract discussion? and i thought mr. shimkus kind of laid out the potential for cooperation here. i do like the notion of collaboration in the process because you've got folks at doe who are doing their best to implement efficiency standards. you've got real world folks that are the manufacturers that have to contend with the very practical issues of implementation. i mean, ms. noll, you're okay with that, right? >> yes. >> i mean, i think standards are incredibly important. i don't think they're everything. mr. cosgriff, you mentioned that the standard in some cases does spur innovation but if you've got something that's highly efficient then it's not going to accomplish all that much. i mean, a lot of what you're saying sounds very reasonable to me. the jobs issue i think it really is all -- it's not so much the jobs issue. i mea