Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20240622

Bounceback quicker. This has to be part of a economic strategy. You cannot have climate happen and not Pay Attention to the cost today and the escalating cost tomorrow. There are tremendous benefits if you stand up and do what is our moral responsibility. The gentlemans time has expired. I think the administrator for her leadership. We will recognize the gentleman from oklahoma. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to start by showing a brief video clip. I was recently criticized for actually doing a tremendous amount of outreach. That is the kind of criticism i would really welcome. It was very painful for me to read how successful it was her people to comment on our rules. The tremendous outreach administrator maccarthy is one thing. But when you use this outreach intentionally to generate nearly one million positive comments on court rule. And not only, using that outreach for activist groups outside of the organization, that i have in front of me, the newsletter from an aba manager. And epa manager. It says the pa is planning to use a new social Media Application called thundercl ap. People can show their support for the proposal. Now you are using social media twills to advocate for your agencys proposal. The thunderclap program will posts i will use facebook and twitter. You are using these to advocate for your proposals and advocate for outside activist groups. Then before the senate, you testified that the epas waters of the u. S. Rule is justified because in 90 of the comments, they favor the proposed rule. You are hijacking the, process and then using that data to justify your will before the senate Epa Committee actually epw committee. Did the epa engaged in a legal analysis to determine if using thunderclap in this matter master with the data . We have done and are doing nothing that would constitute as lobbying. It would be against the antilobbying act. It is well within the boundaries set by the federal government. For the answer yes, or no. Did you give any analysis before using thunderclap and pressuring your employees to use thunderclap. I have a newsletter here. I never pressured an employee to use it. If your agency is using a newsletter, telling people to sign up for thunderclap and promote the proposal, would that not be an ethical violation. Where you are using your employees to advocate for your proposed rule. Lets dissect this if you can. The question you propose to me is if the social media was lobbying . It was not. Is was education and getting everyone involved. It is exactly what everyone is telling us to do. This is a different level. There is in the muck year from an employee who was concerned about feeling that type of pressure. The employee contacted and ethics official. They are in agreement that this is a national concern. They say there is agreement that this is a problem. That is why i wanted to dissect this. There was an employee that took that and copied it in and shared it with others in the agency. That was inappropriate and that person has been it was an Agency Newsletter was it not . Not that i am aware of. He has been counseled. It said it was from the weekly dd news item. I would like to know what that news item is and why it is coming from the director. The director made a mistake and was counseled. I do not want you to get confused by the epas effort to engage people and get them active in considering how important claim living is. You do realize that your own original judicial officers and ethics official say this is a problem. My next question is, what are you doing about that problem . The information, as far as i know, has been counseled to not do that. It should not have happened. That has nothing to do with the fact that we use they are two major concerns. One is a potential pilot of law. It is the antilobbying act violation. I fought in the war in iraq. Imagine if president bush said, we need our agency and our department of defense employees to advocate for removing Saddam Hussein . We would feel pressure as employees of the department of defense to do that. This is something your agency has been involved in. The antilobbying act is concerning to me. We will look into that. And number two, putting pressure on the employees to promote the waters of the u. S. Rule. It is not a violation of law, but we recognize the gentleman from texas. Thank you, mr. Chairman and miss mccarthy, thank you for being here. A couple of questions. Do you know what state has been the number one state 41214 years running . No. Texas. Dino who was been the number one job producing state . I would guess, texas. Dino who was the second Largest Agency in the world . Texas. You got it. Serving on the texas legislator. Do you know of how good the texas economy is, compared to the others who i call the lesser 49 states. It is way up there. And finally, do you know what state has its own electric grid. Texas does. You are almost batting 1000. Texas does really well. Mr. Chairman i have five articles here about the proposed rule i would like to submit. You made the statement before the energy and Commerce Committee that the clean up our plan is not a pollution control. Dear member making that comment . Did i make that comment . I do not know in what context. Well, today it has been your testimony that in your exchange with congresswoman clark that we have a moral obligation. Is that accurate . To act on climate, yes. At some point, you said the epa was not empowered by the legislation to consider costs. Not on the carbon pollution. That we have to consider costs. Have you considered the costs. I believe this has been entitled the most costly regulation in history. Why is the epa imposing these costly regulations on the American People when you admitted to the energy and commerce commu committee that it is not about protecting the environment . I do not know the context but it is not one of the most significant cost rules. It is enormously beneficial. In 2008, he was running and said, under my plan, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket. The president is looking forward and driving up, dear member that comment, by the way . I have heard it. Hat have you seen the youtube . So you know it was on his mind, to drive electricity prices up . That was in january of 2008 in a San Francisco chronicle. His study recently came out and said that in fact, under the clean our plan, electricity prices will be driven up. Were you aware of that . I am aware that there are studies that state that. They look at the facts and are not beholden to any government agency. Is that a true fact . That they are independent . That is right. Yes. Thank you for saying that. A family of four may face thousands of dollars in electricity prices. I am glad to hear that there are colleagues on the other side of the house that are glad that we are looking out for poor people. I have been in many homes where people could not afford air conditioning repair. When the electricity bill goes up 5 10 , it hits them hard. We look at this very closely. I am extremely familiar with energy costs. When the Energy Information administration came out and said that the clean power plant and other epa regulations will increase electricity prices for the American People, and let me add, it is going to disproportionately impact low income families. Do you agree with that . We are working very hard to give the states the flexibility to not have that happen. Have you ever been in the homes of the low income families . Yes. It is kind of sad, isnt it . We are hoping this will protect them. Let me move on. I am running out of time. In fact, i am out of time. Thank you, mr. Weber. Now, we recognize the gentleman from ohio. Mr. Johnson is recognized. I have a lot of ground to cover. I would like to. I am going to ask you specific questions. The questions themselves are not complex. Dancers are pretty much is or no answers the answers are pretty much yes or no. If you do not understand, ask me for clarification. I want to move through these so we can get through them. Set ok with you . Will do the best can i will do the best i can. The independency, and we have heard the term independent science. We have heard that spoken here several times. According to news reports, including a recent New York Times article, the epa has a cozy relationship with thirdparty environmental groups such as the nrdc and the sierra club. They are in tempting to influence agency policy. Is it epa policy to request that these thirdparty groups write reports to support the agencys position . I do not know of any agency policy. Lets have slide number one come up. According to this email obtained by the committee the epa policy director rise to the nrdc that, showing that no new plans are being built. It might be helpful in order to provide cover for a draft epa fool on the new fossil fuel power plants. Are you surprised that the epa policy director requested that the nrdc draft a report related to any be a pool . Have you seen that before . No. Does it surprise you that the policy director would ask an outside group to do that . I assume he has had communication. Will you take that and get back to us with how that conflicts. If it is not your policy, if it is not the epas policy to do that, then it violates the policy. Will you say, based on this, that the epa does have a cozy relationship with these outside groups. The agency is asking them to write reports on an outside draft rule. Our process is transparent. It is not transparent because you are not getting comments on outside groups, other than groups like the nrdc. Do you think it is appropriate that the nrdc is providing cover in their reports for proposed rules . I think it is appropriate that the epa continue to do rulemaking the way it does. I understand your job is to do rulemaking, but the question is how transparent and independent is it, really . Is it the first time they have requested a thirdparty report, regarding a pool . Regarding a rule . Have you ever requested a thirdparty report . Lets have slide number to come up. Administrator maccarthy, it appears that michael goo maintained a close relationship with thirdparty groups, even inviting employees from the nrdc to his house for an annual party known as the goofest. They offer shots of liquor off of an ice luge and Copious Amounts of alcohol. There is a quote from president obama stating that even better of killing bin laden i am jealous i do not have an obamafest. Are you familiar with it . I have never been. Would you agree that inviting these thirdparty groups that that shows a close relationship with these folks . Do you think it is appropriate for someone who is responsible for directing epa policy to host a party that includes in 10 days at attendees attempting to influence the agency policies. I would agree that do you agree that it is appropriate . I have no reason to believe that that was about influencing policy. Lets go to slide number three. Mr. Chairman, i am sorry we are out of time because i have a lot more i want to cover. I will yield back. Thank you, mr. Johnson. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Administrator maccarthy, thank you for being here. I wanted to ask you about the waters of the u. S. Rule. Do you believe it expands the epas jurisdiction in this area . No, i do not, sir. You do not believe that . No. Do you feel you will need additional funding to meet any new responsibilities, based upon this rule . Hopefully it provides clarity to actually reduce the number of effort on all parties, including those who want to get work done and need a permit. The goal was to save money and continue to protect the waters that are necessary for drinking. Do you believe the role was successful in providing clarity . That was its intent and i believe we did. I want to read you some quotes from someone who has 20 years of experience in the field. It is a gentleman who testified before the committee. His comments were, unfortunately, the rule fall short of providing the clarity. This rule will increase federal Regulatory Power over private property and lead to increased litigation and lengthy delays for any business trying to comply. Equally important, these changes will not significantly improve Water Quality because much of the will improperly encompasses water features that are already regulated at the state level. How do you respond to those comments from bob kerr . I disagree with everyone of them. I want to read another quote to you. The only thing is certain is how difficult it will be for me to provide jurisdictional limitations and secure permits for mike clients. This for my clients. This rule is very convoluted. They will struggle to determine what is jurisdictional. How did respond . We did this rule because many in congress and outside stakeholders asked us to do the rule and provide clarity. In her comments, you mentioned that your goal is to provide clarity. I am trying to reconcile that with someone who has 20 years of it experience advising businesses and people trying to comply with the law that is telling us that it does not provide clarity. You will have to speak with him because this will actually says what is in, what is out the boundaries that we need to look for. Those things have not been clear for 15 or more years. I wanted to ask you about ditches. You have made a point that ditches are not included as a jurisdictional in the final waters of the u. S. Rule. I have made it very clear that we are only including ditches that act as tributaries that are important to protect. We have added specific exclusions to make it clear that ditches that only run once and i while and are there for irrigation purposes, all of those issues that we maintain all of those is collusions and have added them for clarity purposes. We are trying to get the ditch issue off of the table. So, if a farmer or a local government believes their ditches exempt, do they have to ask for an exemption . Can they consider that they have one . It is exempt. We also very carefully and more narrowly, crafted what is a jurisdictional tributary so anyone can clearly look at it and make those determinations and so, it would limit the amount of time. It would also provide certainty to the farmers. So, if someone believes they are exempt, they are exempt. There will not be april in from the epa that counters that. Be a ruling from the epa that counters that. Can i just interrupt you for a second. We think that maybe jurisdictional. When you say we if the individual does not believe it is jurisdictional they do not call us. You would not do, and anyway, i have recourse on them because they did not call you . We are trying to make it as clear as possible. Farmers and those in agriculture would actually know and feel comfortable that what they were doing was absolutely all right. And if you disagreed, you would not have recourse on them. We have tried to make it as clear as possible. Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from california, mr. Knight is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I will go on a couple different wines. I want to followup with the recent discussion. If we go back to our farmers and we say if you look at these ditches and you believe you are not polluting these waterways these temporary waterways. These ditches. You are ok and there is no reason why the federal government should come onto your property and check these ditches out . We have done nothing than to hopefully, provide clarity on what constitutes a tributary and what does not. I am going to move on to california. All of my texas folks are yelling and screaming about their state. I will talk about california. In a recent article, there was discussion. I will read very carefully a couple lines. In some localities in the western states, the new standards are approaching back levels of ozone. These sectors are out of local control. The epa claims that there exclusion is responsive to the concerned, many states believe that their tools to address the concerns are limited and inadequate. These concerns are spread throughout the u. S. And are not limited to a specific geographic region. In california, we have an awful lot of background, other things that have happened to our state that we cannot control. Countries and other things that have happened to our ozone. By this statement, in this article, is that a true statement . Is the exclusionary rule applying to california . I think they are talking about exception error rate events. These are things that happened with outside of the states control. We did want to clarify dust issues. All of the ways in which you can have dust storms arise. That seems to have resolved a lot of issues. We also know there are issues with wildfires that we have to address. That is going to be april making that we are moving forward with, so it does not interfere with the states ability to be able to. I will follow up on another article that i would like to be put into the record. It is from the San Joaquin Valley air control district. We have had many air control management districts in california that are very restricted and difficult. South coast and san joaquin are very difficult because of all of the mitigating factors and the background that happens to these two. It was brought up from san joaquin is in pending standards for ozone require different to deadlines and different attainments. The solution, or the worry is that sometimes, when they get new regulations or new attainments, that the old ones do not fall off. They have to continue to make those reports and to those kinds of standards. Is that something we can correct at the epa . We are trying to enhance the states ability to make multipollutant plans. So they can think about them together. Were also trying to take a look at how we can, more effectively and quickly, deal with the designations. Those who have achieved the standards have an ability to not eat captured in not be captured in the constant state implementation world. We do not want the states to stop doing things they are obligated to do. It is hard to move forward with continuous action. I would ask that if you can allow the states to get these attainments by working on a standard that works for their state, and maybe, letting them work with their districts whether it be the california Resource Board it might be helpful. Secondly, if we can make it so they understand what they are doing every year. They do not have to continually look back and continually do the things that may be, have been required of them in years past that will make it helpful. 9 we will do the best we can. I know how hard they work. Thank you for coming in. I will yield back. The gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Mccarthy, i will like to put something up on the screen. This is houston, texas. It is part of my district. It shows that twice a day traffic for commuters ford 2 Million People in the city of houston. Under your regulations, and the Clean Air Act for traffic conformity we will not be able to expand or add new lanes. Most of my district, including harris county, is not in attainments under the current standards much less, under the new rules. Do using this is a good idea . Houston, texas we could not add any lanes to these thoroughfares here. I was looking to see myself here in that picture. I have been stuck there. We work very hard when there are construction issues that arise new lanes that need to be added. To work through the traffic and for many issues. It is not a Carte Blanche ban on doing new roadways. The city of houston in the county of paris would be able to add lanes. It does not mean you cannot move forward. It means we have to Work Together to make that happen. I will make that i will remember that. I will remember that. Let me tell you how many jobs are at stackke with this new regulation. 140 billion every year. Epas new proposed regulations will cost might home state of texas 286 billion over the next 23 years up until 2040. 286 billion in gross estate product losses. It will cost us 347,000 347,000 lost jobs. 39 billion from my constituents in texas for my constituents to operate their vehicles. This will be one of the most costly regulations ever issued in history for the american public. Especially for my home state of texas. I have one of the most highly industrialized districts in the country. If one of my constituents loses their job because of this regulation, what would you say to him or her. These of folks these folks need these jobs to provide for their families. How can you justify this . I dont know what numbers you are looking at. These numbers came from the National Association of manufacturers. They might as well have recycled them from the last time we did and ozone standard. They were not true then why are all of these stakeholders saying they cannot come into compliance. They will have to shut their plants down. This will cause them to lay off employees. As we heard mr. Weber say a while ago in the state of texas we have provided more than 50 of the jobs in the entire country over the last five years very. We have followed appropriate Economic Impact work. One of the things that no one seems to recognize is that the vast majority of Companies Across United States are going to be in attainment within the new standard that is revised. Because of what we are doing at the national level. I beg to differ with you. We have a map that shows that immediately we will be out of attainment. It is so severe that Even Yellowstone National Park will be out of attainment. Immediately. Because of the new ozone regulations that you are proposing. I am happy to take a look at that, sir. I yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman yield spec. To clarify, states and localities cannot lose transportation funds from the department of transportation for roads and bridges if the area is in nonattainment. That includes my own district in oklahoma. I now recognize the gentleman from alabama. Mr. Palmer. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Mccarthy from the epa projections show the mass majority of u. S. Counties would meet the standards by 2025. That is correct. Is also correct that the epa is just now, releasing guidelines for implementing the 2008 rule . Then why in the world are we talking about a new standard which the epa, based on a past hearing admitted, the technology does not exist to meet this new standard. Why are you implementing a new standard when you are not even implemented the last one . There still remains a number of standards Congress Told us to do this start. It is an effort to continue to look at the site did Congress Tell you to do this . Your authorization to do this is from congress. If Congress Told you not to do this, you would not do that. I am operating under the authority of the law i am implement in your loss. If you change the law, you will not do that. Thank you. I would like to talk about the impact on low income families. I grew up dirt poor. I get this. I would like to point out that the National Black chamber of commerce has come out strongly against this. Let me read you what they said. The epa regulations, if you would put of slide number when police. The epa regulations will increase has panic poverty by 26 and black poverty by more than 23 . This shows the increase in Energy Burdens in black and hispanic homes. This shows losses in median incomes. Disproportionately affecting black and hispanic households. This shows the projected job losses. For black families by 2025, we are talking about 2. 2 million losses. Among hispanics, 3. 8 million by 2025. By 2035, we are talking over 3 million. This shows the increase in the poverty rate or black households and hispanic households. Reading from the National Black chamber of commerce report, the epa regulations will increase and hispanic poverty by 26 and black poverty by 23 . Maam, i dont know how you justify this because it does create an Enormous Economic burden. It is having an enormous impact on jobs. The Economic Institute which is a left leaning group. They are labour think tank. It points out that 29 of the unemployed have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. That is over six months. We are looking at a report from gallup. It shows that prior to 2008, there were approximately 100,000 more businesses starting up and closing. Since 2008, 70,000 more businesses have closed then start up. In terms of how we rank with other industrialized nations, in terms of entrepreneurship and job creation, we do not rank first, or second. We rank 12th. I want to quote from an article in usa today in trying to it explain these trends. The death of so many businesses and the dearth of new ones. One of the most obvious factors is you have basically denied the Economic Impact of these. You seem to think there is an economic benefit. We have had numerous hearings on the ozone role, on the clean power plant, and there has been several people testifying that this is all justified because of Health Benefits. Here is a study, mr. Chairman i would like to submit all of these for the record. Without objection, so ordered. Here is an article from the american journal of Public Health that said the single biggest predictor in terms of respiratory health is income. Obviously, i think you would agree that income is directly related to job status. Would you agree with that . It sounds right. Mr. Chairman, a yield the balance of my time. The gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. And as mccarthy, thank you for being here. We are the little guys on the totem pole. I chair the subcommittee on oversight. In the short time i have been here, we have asked numerous times for documents from your department and office. We continually rarely get those. I was informed as we were walking in that we did receive a bunch of documents just before your testimony care today. You actually mentioned in one of your responses that you have produced 15,000 documents to the committee. If we could bring up slide one. We appreciate that. What i have right here is an illustration of just one page of 2000 of these pages of documents which is incoherent garbage. It is garbled. I want to bring this to your attention. This is 2000 pages of the 15,000 just like this. Either this is an insulted the committee or it is a political statement. I will move on from that now. I do want to talk about Economic Impact. Regulations that have an impact on the American Economy greater than 100 billion or deemed economically significant. Executive order 12 866 which was imposed in 1993 by the Clinton Administration required agencies conduct a Regulatory Impact analysis in which costs and benefits of economically significant roles are analyzed as well as an analysis of potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives for these roles. Yes or no. When the epa sent the proposed waters of the United States ruled to the office of management and review in 2013, did they deem the role to be economically significant. Meaning it would have an economic sick that an Economic Impact an Economic Impact of greater than 100 billion. Something as big as the waters of the u. S. , we are unaware of its Economic Impact. It seems like that should be something that we would know right away. The challenge for us is that it has no direct impact on the economy. The costs come in when it is being implemented. It is not a role that requires action. Did the omb determine if it was economically significant when you first requested it . I will have to get back to you. If the omb had indeed determined it was economically significant, with the epa have conducted a regulatory analysis . Yes we would have. I would like to show you a series of emails that were produced for the committee by the epa regarding the proposed waters of the United States rule by the omb as being economically significant. In this slide, this email, the office of general counsel lawyers they discussed that this rule is economically significant. David evans writes Economic Assessment identifies economic costs well above 100 billion a year. I think epa has claimed the indirect effects should not be used to trigger the monetary threshold of identifying economically significant policy actions. It is clear that the omb initially had determined that it is well above 100 billion impact. Is it the epas believe that if the role has indirect Economic Impact, it should not be economically significant . You should not be surprised that we have back and forth with omb. Could we go to the next life. In this email, the epa office of water employee Tim Pendergrass writes nancy and kim know that a Regulatory Impact analysis may be necessary. But there are some economically significant roles from epa that have not had an riaa which is required according to the executive order we cited earlier. They are stating here that there are some economically significant roles from epa that have not had an riaa. They are checking with the office of policy to see at there was some agreement at the political level that we do not have to conduct an riaa. The response to this email states good news. Tamika and sandy talked to ken and can has said it has been agreed that we do not need an riaa. Let us leave it at that. There was a political decision made that you do not need to know what law says you have to do. This email appears to show that epa made a political decision not to conduct a formal Regulatory Impact analysis for the proposed waters of the United States. Who made that decision . Who made the political decision that you do not have to follow what the law says . For the record, the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from louisiana mr. Abraham is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman i would also like to submit a letter that 22 Health Care Professionals have signed that would argue against the epas stance on the Health Benefits of these decreased ozone layers. If you would allow me to admit that, i would appreciate that. I am a physician and a scientist. I would appreciate any raw data you could give me the cousin cannot i can interpret them and make my own decisions that some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that we were not able to interpret. If you could get that to me, i would appreciate that. We have provided the data that the chair requested. It is available. The other thing, ms. Johnson referenced the integrity of the epa. I what to make a comment on that. As you are probably aware, last week, there was an article that came out that said your senior counsel for air and radiation was given by the centers of American Progress some talking points for journalists when you were trying or when he was trying to move the physicians. As a physician and a scientist who looks at raw data, and makes decisions, i am troubled to say the least when one of your people who i am sure are quite capable of coming up with their own opinions, are being influenced by those on one side or the other. Saying that, you also have read you also have referenced tornadoes, hurricanes, i am from louisiana and i assure you we know hurricanes. You referenced last week a doctor who used to be on president obamas team of environmentalists, came out and said that president obama is dead wrong on this global warming. These are his words. Not mine. If you can give me objective data where we have seen increased tornadoes and hurricanes in the last five years, i would be happy to receive them. Lets go back to asthma. You had referenced that. As a physician and a scientist i read a lot of epidemiology journals. The american journal of epidemiology volume 156, issue 10. What i was looking at, i was looking at your testimony and what the epa was touting, if we do not reduce these ozone layers, we will have an increased incidence of asthma and respiratory conditions. Let me just state that beijing, china, one of the filthiest cities in the world i am told as far as air quality, has a prevalence of lifetime asthma of 2. 2 . California is 13. 8 . Despite decreased ozone layers in the United States. I have treated thousands of cases of asthma in louisiana delta myself. We have some pretty clean air down there. We are in the farming community. I understand the American Lung association has gotten on the bandwagon with the epa saying increased ozone layers are numbers and they could contribute well they could. But if you look at the objective data, you have to take into consideration dust, pollen count, dust mites, and these kinds of things. My question is you know what percentage increase in asthma there has been over the last few decades . I have a slide. If you look at this slide you can see that asthma rates have dramatically increased and this is despite decreasing ozone. I guess i would ask for your comment on that. I dont think that scientists at this point are saying that asthma is caused by ozone. The issue is that it is exacerbated. The objective data cannot prove that and again i can talk to any scientist you want. Give me some good points to argue here. What happens is it exacerbates the impact of asthma because you can say that ms. Mccarthy but you have to prove that in the Scientific Community and these numbers just do not add up. And that is my point. I dont mind looking at good numbers but i am looking at an asthma increase with decreased ozone levels. We have not made the scientists for us have not made any connection between levels of ozone and the prevalence of asthma. It exacerbates the impact. It makes it more difficult you can say that, but you cannot prove that. The gentlemans time has expired. What we will do now is move into a second round of questioning. We have a vote on the floor the house right now. It is a single vote. I will chair the hearing for the second round. I will be replaced here. Moving into the second round ms. Mccarthy, a couple of things i would like to say given the comments weve heard so far. It is true that cities, minister, and states have they can lose their department of transportation funds if they are not in compliance with the epa. That is absolutely true. You agree . They camp. That means that if they camp they are being bullied. This is federal bullying. This is what my constituents in oklahoma are a poured by this kind of abhorred by this kind of federal bullying. You can argue. That is not a rule making. It is in the law. It has never happened. Mr. Chairman, i am the only person on this site and i have to vote. Can you recess long enough for us to vote . We will keep rolling because we all have somewhere to go. The vote supersedes and the rule says we can recess for a vote. We have plenty of time. We will get there. Im am going to reclaim my time and move forward. As far as the Economic Impact people say this will somehow grow the economy and the rules and regulations will grow the economy. This is not this has not been historical precedent. I question is in the note in november 2014, you had an oped and you said the Clean Air Act requires the epa to update airquality standards every five years. Requires the epa to update airquality standards every five years. In your testimony today, you said that the Clean Air Act calls for the epa to review the standards. You ignore knowledge there is a difference between update and review . Know, if you update it on the basis of science. Can you keep the standards the same . Absolutely. You dont have to update the standards. You can review them and keep them the same. Have them updated by current science. It could result in the same standard. When youre doing your advocacys, some of us are concerned that youre using different language than what you use when you testified. You said you have to update the standards, that is different than review the standards. If you see it that way sir, i will try to be more careful. Weve heard testimony before this committee that your agencies proposed ozone macs role will be the most expensive regulation american history. In light of the Supreme Courts ruling, when can we expect the epa to withdraw its requirement since economic costs were not properly prioritized when formulating the role . The rule . We will be moving to finalize by october of this year. Are you suggesting that you are not going to withdraw the proposed ozone role . I am not now intending to withdraw the rule. Has the costbenefit analysis been taken into account . Yes. I think it is clear that we will have to start over from the beginning given the Supreme Courts ruling. With that, im going to go vote. I would recognize the ranking member. She has departed. I will recognize mr. Johnson for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you director mccarthy. Or administrative mccarthy. When we ended the last round you assured me that you had never been had never attended a too fastest. I got the last invitation. I only received one and i did not attend. Would you agree though that the epa director of policy. This is the person who directs the development of policy. Having a personal private relationship, a social relationship at a thing called goo fest, shows that the epa, critical members of the epa have a close relationship with these outside, thirdparty organizations . Is there any denying that it . These are some of the people influencing policy. We have already established that you have asked this group to do policy papers for the epa and now you have the epa policy director her in social settings with these folks. Let us go for slight three. Slide three. In another email the Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at a conservation organization. I will demonstrate this inappropriate relationship. She thanked him for inviting him to the party. According to the white house visitor logs, she has visited the white house on 71 different occasions. Administrative mccarthy, how many times have you been to the white house . A lot. More than 70 when times . 71 times . I dont know. She is older than i am. Are you surprised that this official has visited the white house, 71 times . I dont know the woman. But you know the position she has. She is a Vice President of Government Affairs at the league of conservation voters. Would you say that environmental groups have a close relationship with the white house . I really do not know. That is a very big organization. According to news reports, an email was obtained by the committee, this gentleman, back to the director of policy, attempted to skirt transparency. You talked about how transparent your rulemaking processes. He tried to skirt transparency and his ties to environmental groups i arranging meetings with the r d see at the starbucks in the Jw Marriott Hotel on pennsylvania avenue in an effort to prevent participants in the meeting from signing in at the epa meeting and creating a public record. It is appropriate in your opinion for an epa employee particularly the director of policy, to schedule meetings without with outside groups attempting to influence the agencys policy decisions, at a starbucks . Sir, i do not know anything about what was being attempted. Somewhere along the line, the buck stops here. Why do you think the epas policy director set up such a meeting at starbucks instead of the agency . I would not want to guess. I think the American People want to know what it says about the epas relationships with outside groups if Agency Officials set up meetings at coffee shops instead of their office. The American People would be very concerned of the cozy relationship between the epa and these outside advocacy groups. I have heard repeated this morning, and you have echoed much more progress in reducing Carbon Emissions and becoming greener with investments in renewables. I just came from a visit to europe and i would urge you to go talk to some of our european friends. Mow might be shocked to find out they are actually increasing their mix of coal in their energy profiles. And when we asked them why they are doing that because you know, they have got this they have a big carbon Emission Reduction to do as well. I asked the president of the energy union. I said how are you going to accomplish this and why are you going to a higher mix of coal . He said our rate payers, our businesses and our residential customers have reached the tipping point. They are no longer willing to pay these high prices in energy costs. It is making us noncompetitive in the worlds economy. Thats what your agency is doing to our country by not considering the economic implications of the rules that you make. The Supreme Court has just ruled that it is unreasonable for the e. P. A. To take that position. So i would remind you of that. With that, mr. Chairman , i yield back. I thank gentleman for yielding. We have a number of member who is have more questions to ask in representation of their districts. We will stand in recess until the call of the chair. The committee on science, space and technology will reconvene. At this time the chair recognizes mr. Palmer. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Administrator mccarthy, i think you made a point that cost was not a major consideration at one point in your testimony. Do you not think that considering the link between income and costs and the number of jobs that we lost and the. That were and preponderance of evidence, do you think we should not take into consideration costs . Thank you. Ms. Mccarthy i believe that jobs are important and need to be considered. I said in the development of an ozone standard, the law and it has been told to us by the court precludes us from looking at costs as standards. That does not mean we dont look at costs in the implementation cost. The Supreme Court decision involving the mercury rule that those are different statutes that at the same time, though i think the point made in the Supreme Court decision that it is unreasonable to apply regulations without taking into consideration the cost and the Economic Impact should be relevant to the discussion were having about o zeend the clean power plant and the waters of u. S. I would encourage the e. P. A. To be more con shen house is in that record. I got a little animated earlier. I was out of time. Im happy to have the second round of questions. To make that connection. It is particularly important in the context of how it impacts minorities. I talked about the report from the black chamber of commerce and also the Southern Leadership Council which i believe was founded by Martin Luther king or he cofounded it. Their president testified to the same effect that what the e. P. A. Is going is going to have a disproportionate impact on black and hispanic families. I would say across the board all lowincome families are going to suffer tremendous harm from these regulations. What bothers me about this more than anything else is the reluctantance of the e. P. A. To hand over the Scientific Research for review. The reports that i have entered into the record have been peer reviewed. I think we need total transparency here. You know, we talk you talk about what you want to do in the context of a cleaner environment. You made this point that the g. D. P. Has gone up since the Clean Air Act, 1970. More specifically since 1980, g. D. P. Has gone up 467 . Vehicle miles traveled, which vehicle emissions contribute to ozone, have gone up by 94 . Populations increased by 38 . Energy output has gone up 22 but emissions has gone down 50 . I made this point in a previous hearing that the air is cleaner than it has been in 50 or 60 years, yet we continue to see an increase in respiratory illnesses, particularly asthma. My point is this is a bridge too far. I think the e. P. A. Needs to scale this back. I think you need to allow the states to implement the 2008 standards. They were already in the process. They were waiting on input from the e. P. A. For their state implementation plans. I think this is clearly a bridge too far. Im very concerned about the collaboration that the e. P. A. Has. I think the overinvolvement of outside groups because it appears to be agenda driven and not sound public policy. With that, mr. Chairman , ill yield the balance of my time. The gentleman yields back. This time im regular recognize myself for five minutes for questions. Thank you for being here. We have the rare opportunity to have you here. A lot of people have a lot of questions and there is a distrust in general, especially of your department. There is a couple of questions that we were just getting into when time ran out. Let me recap this i showed an email to where the o. M. B. Initially stated that the waters of the u. S. Would be well above the 100 million trigger of Economic Impact. However then there was slide two. If we could bring that back up. We were just getting into this email to which after the office of management budget said it was well above the 100 million budget impact. This email said that jim pender grass, office of water employee said nancy and ken know that a Regulatory Impact analysis may be necessary but there is some economically significant rules from e. P. A. That have a and in i. R. A. They are checking with the office of policy to see if there was some agreement at the political level that we dont need to conduct an i. R. A. The response of this email states good news. They talked to ken and he said it is agreed we dont need an i. R. A. Lets leave it at that. It appears to show they decide not to conduct the ira. If it is above 100 million. The first email said it was well above. Not just margin. Who made that decision . Ms. Mccarthy i apologize, sir. During the break, i was actually able to check back in the office. It was determined to be a major rule because it did not have direct but it had sufficient indirect costs and an i. R. A. Was conducted. An i. R. A. Was conducted . Ms. Mccarthy yes. It was determined to be a major rule. There was no behind the scenes work that was banter back and forth between the staff. From what i understand you conducted an Economic Analysis. Not an official i. R. A. But youre stating there was an official i. R. A. Done. Ms. Mccarthy my understanding is it was treated as a major rule. Apparently i mispoke before. So the question is executive order requires you to do an i. R. A. If it is above 100 million. Which originally o. M. B. Said it was above 100 million. Your office chose not to do an i. R. A. But do another analysis. And according to the email that was a political decision made. My question is who made the decision to not go forward . Ms. Mccarthy sir this decision was obviously o. M. B. Made the decision because they have to sign off on the rule and ensure it meets all of the policies and the requirements. I dont know anything more than what youre telling me. According to the emails, it leads us to believe that someone at e. P. A. Went back to o. M. B. And asked them to reassess whether or not this was significant. If there was a significant impact. Ms. Mccarthy and in this case, it was determined to be a major rule and an Economic Analysis had to be done. But not on i. R. A. , which is required. What im getting at is there is a lot of distrust and were having a hard time building some trust here. Ms. Mccarthy yeah. I apologize, sir. Im happy to get back to you. But my understanding is that this rule did not have direct costs so it was allowed to do an Economic Analysis because it would have been difficult to know how you would have done a broader i. R. A. When it had no direct costs. One of the reasons we have o. M. B. Because i think if left to e. P. A. In fact the email says you zpwry done other rules that you know is significant but you havent done an i. R. A. Ms. Mccarthy i dont know what they are referring to. Im telling you it is in the record. If you could get back. I would like to if youksd get back how they changed their analysis to go from well above 100 million. I will get you the that analysis. Can you tell me when well have that information . Ms. Mccarthy ill go back and find out. Do the best i can. We would like to know who made the political decision. Ms. Mccarthy there was no as far as i know sir. According to your emails it was a political decision. Lets leave it at that. I see im out of time. Ms. Mccarthy this was an appropriate way to meet our policies and obligations. Thank you. The chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you for continuing to stay with us on this. I just wanted to follow up on some questions about the ditches that we were talking about. Ms. Mccarthy it has become my favorite. I think your goal was clarity but i think there is a lot of confusion out there. I guess the question i have is do you anticipate that a farmer, business or local government would not face legal action for not applying for a federal permit because they believed their ditches were exempt. So in other words, if someone believes sincerely that their ditch is exempt, will they not face legal action or would at some point the e. P. A. Rule differently . Ms. Mccarthy people are expected to know that if there is a question, they should ask. But e. P. A. And the army corps are not in the business of going around and as youre implying and chasing people for this. It really is a matter of trying to provide clarity. The farmers and ranchers i know care about Drinking Water as much as i do. They are not interested in polluting or destroying it. They are interested in maintaining that for their own benefit and their own kids. This is not an opportunity to do anything more than give them more tools and more certainty in and the process will continue to work as it has always worked. Would you be willing to clarify that in statute . Because what youre telling me today is your interpretation of the rule. Some day someone else will be in your position. Many people throughout the country will be implementing this rule and will have different opinions on that. And even though you say they wont be chasing people around, there is an enforcement obligation that actually does lead them to chasing people around. And so my question is would you be willing to clarify that in statute so there is no ambiguity on that . Ms. Mccarthy i dont know what im clarifying here sir. All im telling you is how the Current System works. Which is that people are obligated to ask when it is a concern and it is a marginal call. They are supposed to know they have to protect those waters. We have made it as clear as we possibly can, which waters should be protected. They should use that judgment and ask if they are urn certain and everything will be ok. Im going to continue to work with you on this. The goal is clarity but there is a lot of of confusion out there and when there is confusion it is going to result in a lot of unintended consequences for costs for people and legal interpretations and consultant fees. Ms. Mccarthy one of the things were doing which might be of interest and i would be happy to work with you on it is were trying to develop a question and answer for folks asking questions so it is available to them and it helps guide them if there is lack of clarity. We will never get 100 clear but i think we tried to geta as far along as we could in making it as clear as possible so they can do their business without concern. Ok. Thank you. I want to follow up with some of your comments i can tell you are a person on a mission. The planet is something i read a quote, one of your quotes from the forum on u. S. Energy and science policy where you talked about there are a lot of things that i worry about. I worry about the obligations i have to the planet. Do you remember that the same . Ms. Mccarthy it was kind of a fun moment. They asked me what i would do if i had all the time in the world i explained i would hang out with my children more, but after i deal with the planet. The it was sort of a humorous. Because it does when you talk about moral obligations and you talk about climate change. Ms. Mccarthy yeah. It does have sort of the appearance of almost a religious fervor about this. I guess one of the things i would like you to consider because i know youre very passionate about this. But if some of the analysis is accurate in terms of the economic costs. Ms. Mccarthy yes. You have a background in Public Health. Ms. Mccarthy yes. I would like you to consider the Public Health impact when it comes to people losing their jobs, having lower incomes depression. Suicide, people who are unable to pay for their medications because they are out of work. These are the realities of these kinds of in my view some of the draconian regulations that may have certain unintended effects but also have some that are unintended. I see my time is expired. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Unfortunately there is going to be more procedural motions on the floor and since all members have asked questions. I know youre going hate to hear this. Were going to go ahead and adjourn. Thank you so much for being here. Ms. Mccarthy thank you very much. Thank you. Conservative pollster and author of the selfie vote, the mill length yall generation and how politicians are vying for this crucial voting bloc. When you take a look at where peoples eyeballs are going these days, political advertising became very heavily focused on ads. The technology has changed that now if you walk into a room of not just 20yearolds but 60yearolds, what are they looking at . They are looking at their phones. For folks in the political world who want to reach the people, things like candy crush or whatever the latest game is. It may be fading in popularity but there is always something new that is popping up. Finding ways to get your message in front of people where they are paying attention is really important. Sunday night at 8 00 eastern and pacific on cspans q a. Friday, a hearing on the operational challenges for the International Space station. Witnesses include former astronauts and representatives from nasa and boeing. You can see the house science subcommittee hearing starting at 9 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan 2. Coming up on cspan, remarks by member s of congress on the Confederate Flag and South Carolina governor nikki haley signs the a measure to remove the house from the statehouse. And then Gina Mccarthy testifying about her agencys regulatory agenda. On the next washington journal bobby scott is here to discuss the no child left behind bill and other education issues. Then a look at the impact of the e. P. A. Bruce westerman of arkansas. You know join with your call and comments. This week on first ladies influence and image. We learn about lucretia garfield. She was an educated woman and a blevertpwhreefer womens rights. When her husband was assassinated she returned to ohio and made their home into an early version over the president ial library. Chester arthur becomes president and his sister fills the role of first lady and establishes white house social etiquette used by future first ladies for decades. This sunday night at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspans original series first ladies influence and image. From Martha Washington to michelle obama. Sundays at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. American history tv on cspan 3. Thursday in the u. S. House, leadership pulled the environment and spending bill from the floor following a disagreement that would allow the current National Park services follows stand which allows National Cemeteries that to decorate the greys of civil war veterans with Confederate Flags. Here are the washings against the amente amendment. I have an amendment at the desk. For what purposes does the gentleman from california seek recognition . I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. Offered by mr. Calvert of california. At the end of the bill insert the following. Notwithstanding any other provision of this act none of the funds made available by this act may be used to display the flag of the United States or the p. O. W. m. I. A. Flag with flags in the National Park Service National cemetery as provided in National Park Service Directors order 61 or memorandum january 24 2015 with the subject line containing immediate actionry quired. The chair the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. The chair recognize is the gentleman from california. Mr. Calvert this amendment will codify National Park Service Policy with regard to the declaration of cemeteries. I urge adoption of my amendment. The chair the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. Does the gentleman from seek recognition . Ms. Mccollum i oppose. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from california. Mr. Calvert i continue to reserve. The chair does the gentlelady from minnesota wish to yield and close . Ms. Mccollum i would rise in strong opposition to this amendment and im actually quite surprised that we find ourselves here tonight attempting to overturn the National Park service recent policy changes to stop allowing the Confederate Flag to be displayed or sold in National Parks. Mr. Chairman, just yesterday this house passed an amendment passed amendment after amendment supporting the removal of the symbol of racism from our National Parks, which are visited every day by americans and foreign visitors of every race. We have read about the divisive tactics happening in the South Carolina state house as they debate the removal of the Confederate Flag. After the murder of nine black parishioners. I never thought that the u. S. House of representatives would join those who would want to see this flag flown by passing an amendment to ensure the continuing flying of the Confederate Flag. I strongly urge every member to stand with the citizens of all races and to remove this symbol of hatred from our National Park service. And with that i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. The gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Calvert i continue to reserve. The chair the gentleman reserves. The gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. Ms. Mccollum mr. Chair i have the right to close. So i reserve my time until i close. The chair the gentlelady reserves. The gentleman from california is recognized. The gentleman from california wish to reserve . Mr. Calvert i urge adoption of the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. Ms. Mccollum i want to restate on june 25 what the National Park Service Director when he requested that Confederate Flag sales be removed from the National Park book stores and gift shops, he also followed a decision by several Large National retailers, walmart amazon and sears, to stop selling items with Confederate Flags on them. And i agreed with these decisions and i commend those for their prompt action. While in certain and very limited circumstances it might be appropriate in a National Park to display the image of the Confederate Flag in a historical content, and i say that as a social studies teacher, the display or sale of Confederate Flags is inappropriate and divisive and i strongly oppose this amendment, which is an attempt to negate amendments which were approved yesterday without any opposition to limit the displaying of the Confederate Flag. And so we should make sure that we uphold what this house stood for yesterday. Which is to say no to racism, which is to say no to hate speech. With that i yield back. The chair the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Ms. Mccollum mr. Chair. I request a recorded vote. The chair pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. The clerk will read. The clerk will suspend. For what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota wish to be recognized . Ms. Mccollum mr. Chair, i move to strike the last word. The chair the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. Ms. Mccollum as we prepare to finish consideration of h. R. 2822, i want to take this opportunity to congratulate my subcommittee chairman, ken calvert, from getting this bill to this point. It has not been an easy process. As we just realized a few moments ago. Weve had to consider nearly twice as many amendments as any other appropriations bill taken up in the house this year. And while i have not agreed with a considerable number of the amendments that have been made to the bill, i do appreciate the chairman. And that we have been able to disagree when necessary without being disagreeble. My working relationship with chairman calvert has been firstrate. I appreciate the hard work and effort hes put into the bill and let me also express my sincere thanks to the Committee Staff on both sides of the aisle, as well as the personal staff in both of our respective offices for their work on the bill. They put in long hours to smooth away for consideration of this bill and i appreciate their efforts. Just a minute, please. Once again i want to say that weve had a good working relationship, mr. Chairman, but i cannot hide my surprise and my outrage that we find ourselves here tonight attempting to overturn the National Park services recent policy change to stop allowing the Confederate Flag to be displayed or sold at our National Parks. With that i would yield to the chairman. The chair the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Calvert i want to say that i enjode and continue to enjoy enjoyed and continue to enjoy working with the gentlelady as we move this process forward and i appreciate your courtesy and kindness. Well continue to work this process as we move overnight there were a number of stories, including the house once a do over on the Confederate Flag. John boehner held a news Briefing Calling for an adult debate over the display of the Confederate Flag. He said he would create an informal Bipartisan Group to review all matters related to the display of the confederate memorabilia likely to include those in the u. S. Capitol. Good morning everyone. Here in the house we continue to get things done for the American People. The first entitlement reform since the 1990s, new tools to fight human trafficking, new resources to combat veteran suicides. We sent to the president a bill that gets our veterans a permanent id card to prove their service. We pass reforms to the health force for a good educational matter where they are from. Our focus continues to be on the peoples priorities. Iran is not serious about abandoning its weapons program. When will his negotiators stand strong . We cannot accept a deal that hands a ron iran to build a bomb almost immediately. Iran is a global menace, the Worlds Largest state sponsor of terror and it is a pipe dream to think that the regime will be a responsible partner when it comes to iraq, yemen,. It is time for the administration to come back to earth. Obama made a statement at the pentagon. He announced no new changes in our fight against isis. Nothing is going to change, i dont know how were going to expect to win. President obama i think has to lay out a broad overarching strategy to defeat and destroy these savage terrorists. Ive outlined on a number of occasions what in my view an overarching strategy should look like. We should give our commanders on the ground more flexibility. Need to combat isils use of social media, and we need to engage, not ignore, our longstanding allies. We only have one commander in chief at a time. However, its his responsibility to lead this fight against isil. Lastly, on the issue of benghazi and the work of the select committee, secretary clinton said, and ill quote, it is the fact that we have released all of the emails that any government relation that have any government relationship whatsoever. Thats just isnt true. He said, she said, Sidney Blumenthal sent me unsolicited emails. Thats not true either. And secretary clinton said, and ill quote, theres no subpoena regarding her email. That isnt true either. All these facts from uncovered by the Benghazi Select Committee and they were uncovered despite the efforts of secretary clinton and the state department to delay, derail and stop this factfinding investigation. As chairman gowdy said this week, secretary clinton had a statutory duty to preserve these records from her time in office. She had a legal duty to cooperate and tell the truth with congressional investigators requesting her records, going back to 2012. So four americans lost their lives in this terrorist attack. The American People deserve the truth about what really happened. Secretary clinton, the state department are prolonging this investigation. They need to stop dragging this out. They need to start cooperating and step up document production so we can get all the facts. Frankly, thats not too much to ask. Reporter how is an amendment to preserve the Confederate Flag the speaker what our members tried to address the concerns yesterday in a way that was consistent with how the Obama Administration has handled this issue. I frankly supported the goal of trying to work with all the parties to address their concerns but, listen, we all witnessed the people of charleston and the people of South Carolina come together in a respectful way to deal with frankly what was a very horrific crime and a difficult issue with the Confederate Flag. I actually think its time for some adults here in the congress to actually sit down and have a conversation about how to address this issue. I do not want this to become some political football. It should not. And so i would expect youll see some conversations in the coming days. Reporter do you think they should be at federal cemeteries, Confederate Flags . The speaker no. Reporter Jared Huffman and democrats who did it put an amendment in the appropriations bill, what do you mean it has become a political football . As you know southern members approached leadership saying theyll vote against the interior bill with this amendment. What do you mean political football . It was regular order, adopted by voice vote. It was reversed. How is it political football . The speaker i think when you look at several weeks ago there was a privileged resolution dropped and then there were these amendments, i want members on both sides of the aisle to sit down, lets have a conversation about how to address what frankly has become a thorny issue. Reporter can you tell us what does that conversation entail . Is this some sort of special committee, commission . Is it the house and senate . The speaker i have some ideas. When i firm them up in my head ill let you know. Reporter mr. Speaker, im a little unclear what youre suggesting goes on in talks. You have been persistently suspect of whats going on here, but yet if the United States pulls out there is no agreement, a lot of people say that is a path to war and is a far worse alternative. Are you thinking that is the route we go, we dont have a agreement, then its military action against iran because we dont have a framework . The speaker no, i disagree with that entire notion. The fact is that the administration has backed away from their own guidelines that they set up going into this. What they were trying to accomplish. They backed away from every one of them. And i dont im not trying to stop any deal here. What im trying to do is stop a bad deal because a bad deal is going to frankly put in the hands of the iranians a Nuclear Weapon. Im opposed to it. Reporter when you say you disagree with the notion here, are you what is it the alternative, why wouldnt there be military action . Why wouldnt iran build a Nuclear Weapon and the United States see increased terrorist threats here . The speaker i think the sanctions put in place ought to go back in place. And make it clear to iran that the World Community is not going to accept their development of a Nuclear Weapon. Reporter the bill has been pulled from the house floor, can you explain your thinking why you did that and what is the then the debate on the the speaker i just told you. I believe its time for some members to sit down and have cafferings about how to deal with this issue in a responsible way. Because i believe that members on both sides of the aisle want to deal with it in a responsible way. Reporter speaking on another issue thats a political football. You said for some time that your party needs to fix the broken immigration system. Members of your party have been denouncing the comments of donald trump who is running for president saying that all mexicans were rapists. As the leader of your party, had to call on yesterday and ask the opponent down, whats your message to donald trump and are you concerned about the impact that debate is having on your party . The speaker i disagree with mr. Trumps comments. And frankly i think when you look at the president ial candidates, theyve all pretty well made their position clear. This has become the biggest political football ive seen in my congressional career. The issue of illegal immigration and what to do with it. As i said last week, its not going to get resolved by congress sticking their heads in the sand. And if we want to resolve issues, like we see developed in San Francisco and elsewhere, we need to get serious about enforcing the laws we have. We all like the laws we have then we need if we dont like the laws we have, then we neat to sit down and get it resolved. Id rather have it resolved sooner rather than later. Reporter will they work on immigration legislation later this year . The speaker i would hope so. Reporter like what . The speaker i would hope so. Reporter the conversation you had about the flag, does that extend to any resolution . The committees theyve been sent to have no immediate plans to hold any hearings. The speaker i just think that we ought to address this in a fairly broadway. I got a pretty good idea the kind of members who ought to be part of that conversation. Reporter but mr. Speaker, are you saying that will there be a vote on the calvert amendment or is that what youre going to discuss . The speaker no, that bills going to that bill will sit until we can come to some resolution on this. Thanks, everybody. \[captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] in the next up in the day was nancy pelosi offering arose illusion that would have forced Mississippi State flag which includes the Confederate Flag to be removed from the house side of the capital. After she offer the resolution House Majority leader Kevin Mccarthy moved to refer the measure to the house of Administration Committee for further review. The house voted along party lines to refer representative pelosis resolution to the committee, punting the issue. The National Journey rights in motion on house floor over state flags containing the confederate battle flag. We will watch what happened now. A question of the privileges of the house and i send to the desk a privileged resolution. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will report the resolution. The clerk raising a question of privileges of the house. Whereas at 4 00 p. M. Today, july 9, the governor of South Carolina will sign legislation to remove the display of the confederate battle flag. Whereas on december 20, 1860, South Carolina became the first state to secede from the union. Whereas on january 9, 1861, mississippi seceded from the union stating in its declaration of immediate causes that our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery, the greatest material interest of the world. Whereas on february 9 1861, the Confederate States of america was formed in a group of 11 states as supported sovereign nation with Jefferson Davis of mississippi as its president. Whereas on march 11 1861, the Confederate States of america adopted its own constitution. Whereas on april 12, 1861, the Confederate States of america fired shots upon fort sumter in sum ter in charleston, South Carolina effectively beginning the civil war. Whereas the United States did not recognize the Confederate States of america as a sovereign nation but rather as a rebel insurrection and took to military battle to bring the rogue states back into the union. Whereas on april 9 1865, general robert e. Lee surrendered to general ulysses s. Grant at appomattox courthouse in virginia, effectively ending the civil war and preserving the union. The Confederate States of america used the jack. Whereas since the end of the civil war, the navy jack, confederate battle flag has been appropriated by groups of symbols of hate terror and intolerance and supportive of the institution of slavery. Whereas groups such as white supremacist groups frighten, terrorize and call harms to groups of people with they have hateful intent, including africanamericans and hispanic and jewish americans. Along with Mississippi House speaker and other state leaders have spoken out and advocated for the removal of the confederacy on Mississippi State flag. Whereas many members of congress, including john boehner support the removal of the Confederate Flag from the grounds of the South Carolinas capitol. Speaker released a statement saying i commend the governor and other South Carolina leaders in their effort to remove the Confederate Flags. In his second inaugural address the month before his assassination, president lincoln ended his speech with these pa powerful words which are meaningful today as when they were spoken on the east front of the capitol on march 4, 1865. With malice toward none with charity for all, with firmness in the right as god gives us, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nations wounds and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a lasting peace with all nations. Whereas the house of representatives has several state flags with imagery of the confederacy throughout the main structures and house office buildings, whereas it is a fact that symbols of the confederacy insult many members of the general public. Whereas congress has never recognized the symbols of sovereign nations within whom it has gone to war, whereas continuing to display symbol of hatred oppression that nearly tore our union apart that is known to have been through many groups would damage the reputation of this august body, institution and offend the very dignity of the house of representatives. And whereas impairment of the dignity of the house and its members constitutes a violation of rule 11 of the rules of the house of representatives of the 114th congress, now therefore be it resolved that the speaker of the house of representatives shall remove any state flag containing any portion of the confederate battle flag other than a flag displayed by a member of the house from any area within the house wing of the whol and donate any such flag to the library of congress. The speaker pro tempore the resolution presents a question of privilege. The gentleman from california. I have a motion at the desk. The clerk mr. Mccarthy of california moves that the resolution be referred to the committee on house administration. The speaker pro tempore the house will be in order. Gentleman is recognized for one hour. Mr. Mccarthy this raises an important question and the house would be best served by committee action. Im moving to refer it to house administration. I yield back and move the previous question on the motion. The speaker pro tempore the question is on ordering the previous question. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The previous question is ordered. Ms. Pelosi mr. Speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. Mr. Speaker i ask for a recorded vote. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady asking for a vote on ordering the previous question. Ms. Pelosi refer to committee. The speaker pro tempore the question has not put that question. Ms. Pelosi may i have a parliamentary inquiry . Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Ill wait until the recorded vote. The speaker pro te what curt clawson was the only republican to side with democrats on the Confederate Flag. All of this and response to the amendment offered by ken calvert that would have permitted National Cemeteries to continue their current policy of allowing cemeteries to commemorate confederate memorial day to decorate the graves of civil war veterans with Confederate Flags. A Statement Released about the amendment saying, the amendment was brought to me by leadership at the request of some southern members of the gop caucus. I regret not conferring with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. A number of democrats came to the floor to talk about the Confederate Flag amendment in talking points memo. While railing against ehouse amendment to preserve the display of the confederate battle flag representative James Clyburn of South Carolina chose to use an anecdote about general robert e lee to convince conservatives to stand down. Here are his remarks along with those of representative john lewis of georgia. N thyou, mr. Speake mr. Wou le first of a thank thpe is house anhe other members whcameo charleston st mono hp us w ceremonie for thesenar. Id also like to thank ly my cles senorscott, senatr ndy grahamongn saor forng with us as too wh the governor o south colin andaed remgheonfedate ba fl from the ground of the tate house. Is afternoonat 4 00, aa resultf ay definitive vote ely t morning 9420,e vern going t sign the billdomorrow mornngt 10 00the flag wil remov from the ate hous. I reret atm not to be able to accepthe govnors invitation and be th tafternn bec ound 4 00 this afteoon were gg to be votinre his flr. Underand there will arnd 25ot, and 24 othem i might feel a that bad, but one of tm i cannot affoo ssecthat one i might feel that batissi, but o ofm i ot afford to ms cause at one, the calvert ameent, votesen thibody to joiwith south arolinaalabamand actities going on in misssippi to g rid of an official applicatio this fl condete battle ag. No i think its important for uspoint out tha tss not the conrate f. Thedacy hthree flags. Is w ner one of the th flag ia flag, the coederate battle ag of the army of orvirginia robert. Ees army and wh robert e. Lee rrenderehe asked all of his followers to if yocall this flag stowy, put i your attics. Heusd tburiedin his confedete uniform his family refused t allow anyone dressed in t confederatunortoend his funer why . Becserobert ee said consered thislem to be symbol ofreason. Yet he puts up an amendment that were going to vote on this afternoon to ask us to allow this flag to be sold and displayed in our National Parks. I was so proud of when the decision was made by the National Parks service. Fort sumter, a National Park, where the civil war started off the coast of charleston, South Carolina. They decided to take away all of these symbols but they are saying no, dont take them away. Put them back. And we are going to ratify the action to do so. Im calling upon all of my colleagues who come to this floor this afternoon to remember that it was on this date in 1868 that South Carolina, where it all started South Carolina, was the state that gave the votes necessary to ratify the 14th amendment to me. It is a very, very important amendment. Part of the due process and equal protection of the laws. Thank you, mr. Speaker. I yield back. , my heart is heavy. Im saddened by what has happened here in america. I thought we had come much further, much further along. Growing up in rural alabama attending school in nashville tennessee, now living in georgia ive seen the signs that says white the clerk will designate. White waiting the clerk will designate waiting. During the 1960s, during the height of the civil rights movement, we brought those signs down. Theyre gone. The only place that we would see those signs today would be in the book, in a museum or on a video. If a descendent of Jefferson Davis say their flag is a symbol of hate, why cant we do it here . Why cant we move to the 21st century . Racism is a disease. We must free ourselves for the way of hate, the way of violence, the way of division. We are not there yet. We have not yet created the beloved community where we respect the dignity and the worth of every human being. We need to bring down the flag. The scars and stains of racism are steered deeply and embedded in every corner of american society. I dont want to see our little children, whether theyre black or white latina native americans, the speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Lewis these signs mr. Mcgovern i yield the gentleman an additional minute. Mr. Lewis as a nation and as a people we can do better. We can lay down this heavy burden. It is too heavy to bear. Hate is too heavy to burden to bear too heavy a burden to bear. We cant plant these seeds in the minds of our people. When i was marching across that bridge in selma in 1965, i saw some of the law officers Sheriff Deputies wearing on their helmet the Confederate Flag. I dont want to go back and as a country we cannot go back. We must go forward and create a community that recognizes all of us as human beings, as citizens, one people, one nation. We all live in the same house a vote allowing Confederate Flags and National Park service cemeteries